HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5507 i 1111111 111111 iii 11111 ii�ii 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 i�iii���ii 11111 1111 1111
Doe ID: 014680690007 Type: REL
Kind: ORDINANCE
Recorded: 07/10/2012 at 10:03:17 AM
Fee Amt: $45.00 Pape 1 of 7
Washinoton Countv. AR
Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
File2012-00019914
ORDINANCE NO. 5507
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED ZONING
DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 12-4079, PROJECT CLEVELAND, LOCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST CLEVELAND STREET AND HALL
AVENUE; CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.71 ACRES; AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE;AND ADOPTING
THE ASSOCIATED MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the
zone classification of the following described property from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4
units per acre and RMF-40,Residential Multi-Family,40 units per acre to R-PZD 12-4079 as shown
in Exhibit"A" and`B"attached hereto and made a part hereof
Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master
development plan,development standards,statement of commitments and the conditions of approval
as submitted,determined appropriate and approved by the City Council;further,that the conditions
of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the
City of Fayetteville.
Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of the
requirements of the master development plan have been met.
Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the
official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
PASSED and APPROVED this 19`" day of June, 2012.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
"tom'__ y: � .F YETTEV 9:
B _
BY: Adz., c •� ILLE'
L NELD Jr ,Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Trek,01 . 5 ./
,gs.,f:QKANSP' I-R_
s,";'4' NG 1o1�eG0
EXHIBIT "A"
RPM12407 PROJECT CLEVELAND
Close Up View
SUBJECT PROPERTY ao
i
RMP44
- 7—::t
- - — — - ---- ---CLE-vrLAao-sr. — ----
0
a
Y
U
m
K
O ;
a
� .JJ
Q
P-1
PUBLIC 591
Legend
L . . .: Fayetteville City Limits
LUWj,6RPZD12-4079
Footprints 2010
_ Hillside-Hilltop Ov rlay District
Design Overlay Di trict
Design Overlay Di trict
0 75 150 300 450 600
------ Planning Area Feet
EXHIBIT`B"
R-PZD 12-4079
METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
(WASHINGTON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS 765-02584-000,
765-02589-000, 765-02573-000, 765-02587-000,
765-02581-000, 765-02591-000)
PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER(NE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER(SE
1/4) OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SE 1/4,
THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 430.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING(P.O.B.); THENCE NORTH 02 DEGREES 48
MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 170.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87
DEGREES 09 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 64.75 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 02 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 261.53 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 247.50
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF
432.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 06 SECONDS WEST A
DISTANCE OF 312.50 FEET; THE POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.), CONTAINING 117928
SQUARE FEET OR, 2.71 ACRES AND BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF
CLEVELAND STREET ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY AND HALL STREET ALONG
THE EAST BOUNDARY THEREOF.
R-PZD 12-4079 PROJECT CLEVELAND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS AMENDED AND
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
1. City Council determination of compatibility with existing land uses and compliance with
adopted land use policies and goals including City Plan 2030 and the Planned Zoning District
for R-PZD 12-4079 Project Cleveland.As described herein, staff recommends in favor of the
project.
2. City Council determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the following:
a. Cleveland Street shall be improved along the project frontage to include two 13 foot
travel lanes (26 feet total required for fire aerial apparatus access) and on-street
parallel parking on the north side of the street.
b. Travel lanes shall also be shared cyclist lanes, requiring the installation of
sharrows/chevron symbols in the north and south travel lanes for Cleveland Street.
Symbols shall be installed from Garland Avenue to Oliver Street.
c. An 8' sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire property frontage and connect to
the existing 5' sidewalk in front of the Theta Tau property. The existing sidewalk
between Theta Tau and Razorback shall be removed and replaced with a 5' sidewalk
that is ADA compliant.
d. A raised intersection shall be constructed at Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue with a
patterned concrete/asphalt and embedded lighting, as indicated on page 21 of the
traffic study.
e. A raised crosswalk shall be installed on Hall Avenue near the school's parking lot
entrance. The final location shall be determined based on ADA access requirements
and input from the Fayetteville School District.
f. A crosswalk shall be installed on Hall Avenue at the north end of the project to
connect the sidewalks on the east and west side of Hall.
g. In coordination with the Fayetteville School District, one of the existing crosswalks
on Cleveland Street shall be removed.
h. Due to the extensive utility improvements required and resulting trenching on Hall
Avenue and Cleveland Street, the developer shall also be required to mill and overlay
Hall Avenue along the property frontage. The remaining areas shall be inspected after
construction with the city reserving the right to require either street patching or a
similar milling and overlay in these areas.
i. (Offered by applicant) A separated climbing lane shall be installed on the south side
of Cleveland from Sang to Oliver, with sharrows provided on the north side of the
street. The bike lane will be separated from the east-bound travel lane by a 6" curb,
with openings provided at existing driveways and streets, and for drainage. The
existing centerline shall be removed and relocated based on the adjusted centerline of
the travel lanes.
3. City Council determination of compliance with Urban Residential Design Standards. Staff
finds that the proposed building elevations meet the requirements for multi family design
standards. The applicant has committed through the PZD process to comply with the
requirements of the Downtown Design Overlay District (DDOD), which are stricter design
standards. The current building design also complies with these design standards. Additional
construction level information is always necessary to fully review for compliance with
Pagel of 4
R-PZD 12-4079 PROJECT CLEVELAND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,AS AMENDED AND
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
DDOD standards.
4. Heavy construction vehicles shall not be permitted to use Cleveland Street west of the project
or Hall Avenue north of the project. Construction traffic, other than passenger vehicles, shall
use Garland as the primary point of access.
5. All off-site utility upgrades and extensions determined necessary by the City of Fayetteville
to serve this development shall be completed at the time of development, prior to certificate
of occupancy permits.
6. Parks fees in the amount of$38,320 shall be paid prior to building permit approval.
7. Pursuant to the phasing schedule provided in the project booklet, all permits necessary to
begin construction shall be obtained within 18 months from the date of City Council approval
of the PZD. A final certificate of occupancy shall be obtained within 42 months from the date
of building permit approval.
8. Any proposed fencing shall be indicated on construction plans to ensure compliance with
applicable development and design standards.
9. All tree preservation, landscape, engineering and fire department conditions included herein
shall apply.
Standard conditions of approval:
10. Impact fees for fire, police, water,and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance.
11. If applicable, a business license shall be obtained prior to opening the business to the public.
12. Street signs are required to be installed on each private street where buildings are addressed.
These signs shall be installed at the owner's expense and should meet MUTCD requirements.
Please contact the City's Address Coordinator, Susan Pierce at 479-575-8391. Address
numbers shall also be required on both sides of each structure, or as determined appropriate
by the Fire Department.
13. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the
applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR Western
Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications).
14. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for
grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process
was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional
review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements.
Page 2 of 4
R-PZD 12-4079 PROJECT CLEVELAND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS AMENDED AND
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
15. All exterior lights shall comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut-sheets
are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
16. All mechanical/utility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened using
materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. A note shall be
clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents indicating this requirement.
17. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials complimentary to and
compatible with the principal structure. Elevations of the proposed dumpster enclosure shall
be submitted to the Planning and Solid Waste Divisions for review prior to building permit.
A note shall be clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents indicating this
requirement.
18. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall
be located underground. A note shall be clearly placed on the plat and all construction
documents indicating this requirement.
19. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location, size,
type, number, etc. Any proposed signs shall be permitted by a separate sign permit
application prior to installation. Freestanding pole signs and electronic message boards
(direct lighting) are prohibited in the Design Overlay District.
20. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscaping is to be submitted to the
Urban Forester for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter
of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This
guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of
Certificate of Occupancy.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. An on-site inspection by the Urban Forester of all tree protection measures prior to
any land disturbance.
c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area and
all utility easements.
d. Project Disk with all final revisions
e. One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans including tree
preservation measures submitted to the Urban Forester.
f. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City
(letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all
improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be
completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Page 3 of
R-PZD 12-4079 PROJECT CLEVELAND
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,AS AMENDED AND
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL
Added conditions of approval:
22. Egress from the parking structure onto Hall Avenue shall be constructed in a manner to limit
turning movements to right-out only, subject to final approval by the Planning Division.
23. As offered by the applicant and accepted by the City Council, the south-facing Cleveland
Street building fagade shall be further articulated to enhance pedestrian connectivity and
interaction at the street/sidewalk level. The architect shall work to create depth changes in the
building plane, add stoops, doors, and enhanced fenestration prior to obtaining approval of a
building permit.
Page 4 of 4
Washington County,AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
07/10/2012 10:03:17 AM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2012-00019914
Bette Stamps-Circuit Clerk
by
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items
and
Contracts, Leases or Agreements
6/5/2012
City Council Meeting Date
Agenda Items Only
Jesse Fulcher Planning Development Services
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
R-PZD 12-4079: Residential Planned Zoning District(N.W. CORNER OF W.CLEVELAND ST. &HALL AVE./PROJECT
CLEVELAND,443):Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING ENGINEERS, INC.for property located at the NORTHWEST
CORNER OF WEST CLEVELAND STREET AND HALL AVENUE.The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY,4 UNITS PER ACRE and RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY,40 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately
2 7 acres. The request is for zoning, land use and large scale development approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District
with 122 multi-family dwellings.
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category I Project Name
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program/Project Category Name
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
C,'��lr�. 05.1 . 34I1r Previous Ordinance or Resolution#
Department Di ctor Date
Original Contract Date:
Original Contract Number:
—CIt Attorney Date
Fi a ce an Internal Services Director `�� Received in Cis..`
Clerk's Office
Chief of S If Date EkTEfiE9
// Received in
k� Mayor's Office
Yom,/LIQ
Ma or Qat
Comments:
�1i JY���"Va �l,)� &(Jkf�jj� U'"� � 'IP ) (� �✓�l`� i-' �'�� Revised January 15,2009
ale
Ldle THE CITY OF FA PART ENT,ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
s
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor Jordan, City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director �(
From: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Date: May 16, 2012
Subject: R-PZD 12-4079 (Project Cleveland)
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of an ordinance creating a Residential Planned Zoning
District (R-PZD) for Project Cleveland, based on the development standards, plans and statement of commitments
submitted. This action will establish a unique zoning district for a 122 unit multi-family development with a 421 space
parking deck on 2.71 acres.
BACKGROUND
The subject property contains approximately 2.71 acres located at the northwest comer of Cleveland Street and Hall
Avenue. Approximately 1.60 acres is zoned RMF-40 and 1.11 acres is zoned RSF-4. The property is developed with an
existing three-building apartment complex containing 60 dwellings units, and four single-family dwellings.
The applicant proposes to construct a multi-story student housing development with 122 units, containing 450 bedrooms.
A multi-story parking garage is also proposed containing 421 parking spaces. The overall density will be 45 units per acre.
A breakdown of the density and unit count is provided on page 20 of the project booklet. The current unit count on the
property is 64. A total of 68 are permitted by the current zoning.
A traffic study was prepared by Peter's & Associates to evaluate the impact of this development on the surrounding street
network and intersections. The study was later expanded to include the intersections of Cleveland and Razorback,
Cleveland and Sunset, Cleveland and Oliver, and Wedington and Hall. A copy of the full traffic study has been included
in the packet. In addition, the developer commissioned a second traffic study by Small Arrow Engineering.This study was
not complete for the Planning Commission meeting, but has been included in the packet for review by the City Council.
Engineering staff has supplied a memo in the packet summarizing the traffic studies and other traffic-related issues and
concerns that have been submitted.
DISCUSSION
Neighborhood residents attended the Planning Commission meeting at which this project was considered to listen and
provide comments. Minutes from the meeting are included in the packet. The Planning Commission voted 7-1-0
(Pennington voting `no') to forward the project to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Recommended
conditions were approved by the Planning Commission and are reflected in the attached staff report.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
Ta7ye
evi le THE CITY OFFAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENT CORRESPONDENCE
ARKANSAS
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor Jordan, City Council
Thru: Don Marr,Chief of Staff
Jeremy Pate,Development Services Director
From: Chris Brown, City Engineer
Date: May 18, 2012
Subject: R-PZD 12-4079 Project Cleveland-Review of Traffic Studies
SUMMARY
Two traffic studies have been submitted by the developer of Project Cleveland, by Peters and Associates of
Little Rock, and Small Arrow Engineering of Joplin, Mo. These studies have been reviewed by staff; findings
are as follows:
1) The methods of trip generation used by each Traffic Engineer, while slightly different,are based on
standard trip generation methods. Adjustments to the trips from standard values are supported by recent
studies of college housing, and the adjustments are conservative compared to study results.
2) The studies generally agreed on the distribution of trips to the street network, where the majority of trips
will be made on Cleveland Street toward Garland Ave. The studies do not estimate an appreciable
increase in traffic on Cleveland Street west of Razorback Road.
3) Overall, the development's impact to traffic on surrounding streets is not significant, and levels of
service on surrounding streets will remain as they exist today.
4) Pedestrian levels are expected to increase significantly, and both studies recommended improvements to
accommodate the increased pedestrian load.
Further review details are provided below.
TRIP GENERATION
Trip generation is a method of estimating the amount of traffic generated by a new development. The standard
reference document for trip generation is the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual. For apartments such as the one proposed,the ITE Manual has several charts to cover variables such as
type of apartment, time of day (am or pm peaks), etc. Charts providing trip estimates by both dwelling units
and by persons are provided. All of these charts in the ITE Manual are developed empirically, by plotting data
from traffic studies and developing a best fit line.
The ITE Manual does not provide charts for specific types of apartments such as the student housing proposed
by Project Cleveland. Recent studies have attempted to refine trip generation rates for student housing projects
such as this. Studies at Auburn University, the University of Minnesota, and at 4 universities in Virginia have
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
shown that vehicle trips for student housing near campus, and on a transit route, may be reduced by as much as
80% from the ITE Manual estimates.
In the case of project Cleveland, the two traffic studies provided used different methods of calculating trips
generated from the development:
o Peters and Associates used the ITE Manual charts developed for Apartments, using trips per
person, and adjusted these trips based on a study at Auburn University, which estimated
reductions in trips from the ITE Manual for housing on transit routes. The reductions are 40%
for AM peak trips and 20%for PM peak trips.
o Small Arrow Engineering used the ITE Manual charts for Mid-Rise Apartments, using an
average of trips per person and trips per dwelling unit, and included an adjustment based on a
Technical Memorandum developed by Spack Consulting. (The Spack memorandum was
developed from a study of trips generated from existing housing around the University of
Minnesota.) Small Arrow's trip generation calculations for the apartments were substantially
lower than Peters and Associates; however, Small Arrow included conservative calculations for
the coffee shop that ultimately brought their calculations more in line with Peters.
Note that trip generation is either by dwelling unit, or by persons. When calculating trips by persons, both
studies used the number of bedrooms, assuming one person per bedroom.
After review of these calculations, and based on the studies reviewed related to apartment complexes on or near
campuses, and with transit availability, it is staffs opinion that the trip generation calculations are appropriate.
In fact,Peters and Associates calculations seem somewhat high for a development with this set of
characteristics.
TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION
After the trip generation calculations,the next task it to distribute the traffic generated to the roadway network.
Using existing surrounding land uses and existing traffic data, ingress and egress route is assigned a percentage
of the traffic generated by the development.
For this project, the two traffic studies are generally in agreement on the traffic distribution. A summary of the
distribution is as follows:
Cleveland Street-East: 35-50% of generated trips
Hall Avenue: 25-35%of trips
Cleveland Street-West: 25-30% of trips
Both traffic studies estimate while 25 to 30 percent of generated trips will be to/from the west on Cleveland
Street, most of those will use Razorback Road, and only 10% of generated traffic will continue on Cleveland
Street west of Razorback Road. Using the higher numbers from the Peters study, this equates to approximately
15 vehicles in the peak hour, and 100 vehicles per average day, neither of which is expected to have a
significant effect on this segment of roadway.
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
LEVEL OF SERVICE
Level of service is a "grade" given to street segments and intersections. For intersections, this grade is based on
the delay per vehicle, or how long each vehicle takes to navigate through an intersection. LOS ranges from "A"
to "F". LOS "D" or above is considered acceptable.
The intersections evaluated in the two traffic reports all received a grade of "D" or higher in both the pre- and
post -development analysis. There was very little change in the levels of services due to the development, which
suggests that the development will not create traffic issues on adjacent streets and intersections.
PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
Both traffic studies specifically mentioned pedestrian traffic as an issue to be considered and accounted for.
The Small Arrow study counted 53 southbound and 53 eastbound pedestrians in the peak hour, and projected
approximately 200 pedestrians crossing Hall and Cleveland during the peak hour. This obviously is a
significant increase. The study recommends 10 foot wide crosswalks on all legs of the Hall and Cleveland
intersection.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED
ZONING DISTRICT TITLED R-PZD 12-4079, PROJECT
CLEVELAND, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
WEST CLEVELAND STREET AND HALL AVENUE;
CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.71 ACRES; AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE; AND ADOPTING THE ASSOCIATED
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby changes the
zone classification of the following described property from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4
units per acre and RMF-40, Residential Multi -Family, 40 units per acre to R-PZD 12-4079 as shown
in Exhibit "A" and "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof
Section 2: That the change in zoning classification is based upon the approved master
development plan, development standards, statement of commitments and the conditions of approval
as submitted, determined appropriate and approved by the City Council; further, that the conditions
of approval shall be filed and available for viewing in the office of the City Clerk/Treasurer of the
City of Fayetteville.
Section 3: That this ordinance shall take effect and be in full force at such time as all of
the requirements of the master development plan have been met.
Section 4: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby amends the
official zoning map of the City of Fayetteville to reflect the zoning change provided in Section 1.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 2012.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
EXHIBIT "A"
RPZD12-407I PROJECT CLEVELAND
close Up View
P-1
PUBLIC 591
Legend
Fayetteville City Limits
__--- —CLEVELAND_&T—
PZD12-4079
Footprints 2010
Hillside -Hilltop Ov rlay District
[_ ! Design Overlay Di trict
Design Overlay Di trict
0 75 150 300 450 600
------ Planning Area Feet
EXHIBIT "B"
R-PZD 12-4079
METES AND BOUNDS PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
(WASHINGTON COUNTY PARCEL NUMBERS 765-02584-000,
765-02589-000,765-02573-000,765-02587-000,
765-02581-000, 765-02591-000)
PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER (NE 1/4) OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (SE
1/4) OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 16 NORTH, RANGE 30 WEST, WASHINGTON COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NE 1/4 OF SAID SE 1/4,
THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 430.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.); THENCE NORTH 02 DEGREES 48
MINUTES 36 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 170.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 87
DEGREES 09 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 64.75 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 02 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 20 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 261.53 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 22 SECONDS EAST A DISTANCE OF 247.50
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF
432.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 06 SECONDS WEST A
DISTANCE OF 312.50 FEET; THE POINT OF BEGINNING (P.O.B.), CONTAINING 117928
SQUARE FEET OR, 2.71 ACRES AND BEING SUBJECT TO THE RIGHT OF WAY OF
CLEVELAND STREET ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY AND HALL STREET ALONG
THE EAST BOUNDARY THEREOF.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
JUNE 5, 2012
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R-PZD 12-4079 PROJECT CLEVELAND
City Council determination of compatibility with existing land uses and compliance with
adopted land use policies and goals including City Plan 2030 and the Planned Zoning District
for R-PZD 12-4079 Project Cleveland. As described herein, staff recommends in favor of the
project.
City Council determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the following:
a. Cleveland Street shall be improved along the project frontage to include two 13 foot
travel lanes (26 feet total required for fire aerial apparatus access) and on -street
parallel parking on the north side of the street.
b. Travel lanes shall also be shared cyclist lanes, requiring the installation of
sharrows/chevron symbols in the north and south travel lanes for Cleveland Street.
Symbols shall be installed from Garland Avenue to Oliver Street.
c. An 8' sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire property frontage and connect to
the existing 5' sidewalk in front of the Theta Tau property. The existing sidewalk
between Theta Tau and Razorback shall be removed and replaced with a 5' sidewalk
that is ADA compliant.
d. A raised intersection shall be constructed at Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue with a
patterned concrete/asphalt and embedded lighting, as indicated on page 21 of the
traffic study.
e. A raised crosswalk shall be installed on Hall Avenue near the school's parking lot
entrance. The final location shall be determined based on ADA access requirements
and input from the Fayetteville School District.
f A crosswalk shall be installed on Hall Avenue at the north end of the project to
connect the sidewalks on the east and west side of Hall.
g. In coordination with the Fayetteville School District, one of the existing crosswalks
on Cleveland Street shall be removed,
h. Due to the extensive utility improvements required and resulting trenching on Hall
Avenue and Cleveland Street, the developer shall also be required to mill and overlay
Hall Avenue along the property frontage. The remaining areas shall be inspected after
construction with the city reserving the right to require either street patching or a
similar milling and overlay in these areas.
i. (Offered by applicant) A separated climbing lane shall be installed on the south side
of Cleveland from Sang to Oliver, with sharrows provided on the north side of the
street. The bike lane will be separated from the east -bound travel lane by a 6" curb,
with openings provided at existing driveways and streets, and for drainage. The
existing centerline shall be removed and relocated based on the adjusted centerline of
the travel lanes.
City Council determination of compliance with Urban Residential Design Standards. Staff
finds that the proposed building elevations meet the requirements for multi family design
standards. The applicant has committed through the PZD process to comply with the
requirements of the Downtown Design Overlay District (DDOD), which are stricter design
standards. The current building design also complies with these design standards. Additional
construction level information is always necessary to fully review for compliance with
DDOD standards.
JUNE 5, 2012
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R-PZD 12-4079 PROJECT CLEVELAND
4. Heavy construction vehicles shall not be permitted to use Cleveland Street west of the project
or Hall Avenue north of the project. Construction traffic, other than passenger vehicles, shall
use Garland as the primary point of access.
5. All off -site utility upgrades and extensions determined necessary by the City of Fayetteville
to serve this development shall be completed at the time of development, prior to certificate
of occupancy permits.
6. Parks fees in the amount of $38,320 shall be paid prior to building permit approval.
7. Pursuant to the phasing schedule provided in the project booklet, all permits necessary to
begin construction shall be obtained within 18 months from the date of City Council approval
of the PZD. A final certificate of occupancy shall be obtained within 42 months from the date
of building permit approval.
8. Any proposed fencing shall be indicated on construction plans to ensure compliance with
applicable development and design standards.
9. All tree preservation, landscape, engineering and fire department conditions included herein
shall apply.
Standard conditions of approval:
10. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City ordinance.
11. If applicable, a business license shall be obtained prior to opening the business to the public.
12. Street signs are required to be installed on each private street where buildings are addressed.
These signs shall be installed at the owner's expense and should meet MUTCD requirements.
Please contact the City's Address Coordinator, Susan Pierce at 479-575-8391. Address
numbers shall also be required on both sides of each structure, or as determined appropriate
by the Fire Department.
13, Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to the
applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR Western
Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications).
14. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable) for
grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private), sidewalks,
parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat review process
was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are subject to additional
review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's current requirements.
15. All exterior lights shall comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut -sheets
are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
JUNE 5, 2012
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R-PZD 12-4079 PROJECT CLEVELAND
16. All mechanical/utility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened using
materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. A note shall be
clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents indicating this requirement.
17. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials complimentary to and
compatible with the principal structure. Elevations of the proposed dumpster enclosure shall
be submitted to the Planning and Solid Waste Divisions for review prior to building permit.
A note shall be clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents indicating this
requirement.
18. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities shall
be located underground. A note shall be clearly placed on the plat and all construction
documents indicating this requirement.
19. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location, size,
type, number, etc. Any proposed signs shall be permitted by a separate sign permit
application prior to installation. Freestanding pole signs and electronic message boards
(direct lighting) are prohibited in the Design Overlay District.
20. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscaping is to be submitted to the
Urban Forester for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued (bond/letter
of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the plants. This
guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at the time of
Certificate of Occupancy.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. An on -site inspection by the Urban Forester of all tree protection measures prior to
any land disturbance.
c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area and
all utility easements.
d. Project Disk with all final revisions
e. One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans including tree
preservation measures submitted to the Urban Forester.
f. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the City
(letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in Lieu of
Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements. Further, all
improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety must be
completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
a e'ttevll1e
ARKANSAS PC Meeting of May 14, 2012
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
125 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE Telephone: (479) 575-8267
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Glenn Newman, Staff Engineer
THRU: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
DATE: May 9,2012 Updated May 16, 2012
R-PZD 12-4079: Residential Planned Zoning District (N.W. CORNER OF W. CLEVELAND ST. &
HALL AVE./PROJECT CLEVELAND, 443): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at the NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST CLEVELAND
STREET AND HALL AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4
UNITS PER ACRE and RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 40 UNITS PER ACRE, and
contains approximately 2.71 acres. The request is for zoning, land use and large scale development
approval for a Residential Planned Zoning District with 122 multi -family dwellings.
Planner: Jesse Fulcher
Findings:
The subject property contains approximately 2.71 acres located at the northwest corner of the
Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue. Approximately 1.60 acres is zoned RMF-40 and 1.11 acres is
zoned RSF-4. The property is developed with an existing three building apartment complex
consisting of 60 dwellings units and parking lot, and four single-family lots. The current
surrounding land use and zoning is depicted in Table 1.
Table 1
Surrnundinn I and I In and 7nninn
Direction from Site
Land Use
Zoning
North
Single-family
RSF-4
South
Multi-family/dormitory
University
East
School/Single-family
P-1/RSF-4
West
Fraternity
RMF-24
Proposal: The applicant proposes to construct a multi -story student housing development with
122 units, containing 450 bedrooms. A multi -story parking garage is also proposed containing
421 parking spaces. The overall density will be 45 units per acre. A breakdown of the density
and unit count is provided on page 20 of the project booklet. The current unit count on the
property is 64. A total of 68 are permitted by the current zoning.
Bedrooms: Five (5) bedroom units aren't being requested with this development. A request to
allow five bedroom units would require that this project be resubmitted to the Technical Plat
Review Committee meeting and all other subsequent hearings.
G:IETCIDevelopmeni Services Review120121Develapmenl ReviewL'2-4079 IS!) (Project Cleveland)107Planning Cmmnissionl05-14-
121Commenls and Redlines
Water and Sewer System: The property has access to existing public water and sewer services.
However, off -site extensions are required to provide adequate fire flow to serve the development.
Adjacent streets and access: The project fronts on two public streets; Hall Avenue, a local street
and Cleveland Street, a collector street. Access to a 421 space parking garage is from Hall
Avenue. Direct access to Cleveland Street is not being proposed and would be prohibited by the
Access Management Ordinance. Chapter 166.02(F) reads "Property that fronts onto two public
streets shall place a higher priority on accessing the street with the lower functional
classification, ex. Local and Collector."
Traffic study and street Improvements: A traffic study (see pages attached) has been ,,.,ducted
based on an original design for 57O beds ('150 currently proposed). Since the Subdivision
Committee meeting, the traffic engineer has conducted additional analysis and revised the traffic
study to include the intersections of Cleveland and Razorback, Cleveland and Sunset and
Cleveland and Oliver, and Wedington and Hall. The study also now reflects the intended density
of 450 bedrooms. In addition, a second traffic study has been prepared by a separate engineering
firm. Results from both studies are included.
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. (Traffic analysis conducted March 13-15, 2012, with
additional intersection studies conducted May 3-4 2012)
Hourly (page 7) and 24 -hour traffic (page 6) counts are provided for Cleveland Street and Hall
Avenue, as well as an estimate of traffic volumes (page 14*) expected from this proposed student
housing development. The estimated traffic volumes presented in Table 3 include a reduction in
vehicular trip -generation, since it is "assumed that a large number of these residents will utilize
public transit or walk/bike to campus destinations in reasonable close proximity."
Capacity and level of service analysis is provided for traffic conditions for the AM, school PM
and typical PM peak hours for the intersections of: Garland and Cleveland; Cleveland and Hall/U
of A entrance drive; and Cleveland and U of A exit drive (page 19*). All vehicle movements for
the projected traffic conditions at the study intersections are expected to continue to operate at an
acceptable level of service "D" or better. Based on the updated traffic study conducted in May,
this will also be the case for the intersections of Razorback, Sunset, Oliver and Wedington. The
study reveals that only one turning movement has a reduction in the level of service - southbound
turning movements on Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street are reduced from a level of service "B"
to a level of service "C", which is an acceptable level of service.
Figures 3, 3A, 5, 6, 7, 7A, 8, and 8A have been included in this report and illustrate the existing
traffic conditions, projected traffic conditions, and site generated traffic volumes for each of the
studied intersections. Figure 4 illustrates site traffic directional distribution.
* These pages are from the first traffic study, which was based on 570 bedrooms, and do not include the new
study intersections west of the project site.
Small Arrow Engineering. Inc. (Traffic analysis conducted on Tuesday. May 1. 2012)
The applicant has hired a second traffic engineering firm to provide a separate and independent
review of the existing and projected traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project. At the time of
this report, staff had only received preliminary information, which is included. A final traffic
G: IETCIDevelopmeni Services Review120121Developinent Review112-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning Commissionl05-14-
121Comments and Redlines
report will available at a later date, should this item be forwarded to the City Council. This traffic
study was not required and should not be viewed as an incomplete task. The Planning
Commission, however, may decide to wait until this report is complete before making a
recommendation on the project.
High traffic volume and speeding have long been a concern raised by residents near Cleveland
Street, particularly west of Razorback Road. The City of Fayetteville has conducted traffic
counts and evaluated a variety of traffic calming tools for this street in the past. However, the
steep terrain, where the highest speeds occur, limits the use of conventional vertical measures,
such as speed tables. Staff has again evaluated the traffic conditions using the current analysis
provided by the traffic engineering firms and recognizes opportunities for traffic calming
measures near the project site, where the greatest increase in traffic will occur. Implementing
traffic calming measures and requiring street improvements, and coordinating these changes with
the elementary school will result in reduced vehicle speeds, offer safer pedestrian crossings for
students of the elementary school and university, and increase walkability and bicycle mobility
for the neighborhood. These measures are outlined in the recommended street improvements
section of the report.
Street improvements: The traffic study recommends installing pedestrian crossing warning signs
and crosswalks on Hall Avenue and raised crosswalks with embedded LED lights along
Cleveland Street, between Hall Avenue and Garland Avenue.
City staff recommends the following street improvements:
1) Cleveland Street shall be improved along the project frontage to include two 13 foot
travel lanes (26 feet total required for fire aerial apparatus access) and on -street parallel
parking on the north side of the street.
2) Travel lanes shall also be shared cyclist lanes, requiring the installation of
sharrows/chevron symbols in the north and south travel lanes for Cleveland Street.
Symbols shall be installed from Garland Avenue to Oliver Street.
3) An 8' sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire property frontage and connect to the
existing 5' sidewalk in front of the Theta Tau property. The existing deteriorating
sidewalk between Theta Tau and Razorback shall be removed and replaced with a 5'
sidewalk that is ADA compliant to better facilitate pedestrian traffic.
4) A raised intersection shall be constructed at Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue with a
patterned concrete/asphalt and embedded lighting, as indicated on page 21 of the traffic
study.
5) A raised crosswalk shall be installed on Hall Avenue near the school's parking lot
entrance. The final location shall be determined based on ADA access requirements and
input from the Fayetteville School District.
6) A crosswalk shall be installed on Hall Avenue at the north end of the project to connect
the sidewalks on the east and west side of Hall.
7) In coordination with the Fayetteville School District, one of the existing crosswalks on
Cleveland Street shall be removed.
8) Due to the extensive utility improvements required and resulting trenching on Hall
Avenue and Cleveland Street, the developer shall also be required to mill and overlay
Hall Avenue along the property frontage. The remaining areas shall be coordinated
G: ETC Development Services Review120121Development Reviewll2-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning Commission105-14-
l2lComments and Redlines
during construction with the city reserving the right to require either street patching or a
similar milling and overlay in these areas prior to final occupancy
Street improvement 9)
*In addition to these improvements, the applicant has indicated a willingness to provide traffic
calming improvements to Cleveland west of the project site, as well, to assist with the existing
traffic speed concerns. The applicant is proposing to install a separated climbing lane on the
south side of Cleveland from Sang to Oliver, with sharrows provided on the north side of the
street. The bike lane will be separated from the east -bound travel lane by a 6" curb, with
openings provided at existing driveways and streets, and for drainage. This will require the
centerline to be removed and relocated based on the adjusted centerline of the travel lanes.
Engineering, Planning and the Trails Coordinator have all reviewed this concept and accepts the
applicant's proposal. This will be included as a requirement in the conditions of approval.
Tree Preservation: Existing Tree Canopy: 19.8%
Tree Canopy Preserved: 6.80%
Minimum Canopy Required: 19.8%
Mitigation Required: 66 two-inch caliper trees
Public Comment: Notification was delivered to property owners within 100' of the project
boundary and two public notice signs were posted on the property. Staff has received questions
and comments from multiple city residents. All letters are attached. The primary concerns voiced
by residents include; building height and scale, safety for parents and school children walking to
Leverett Elementary, increased (and existing) traffic on Cleveland and Hall, location of the
parking deck entrance, removal of single-family residences and trees.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that R-PZD 12-4079 be forwarded to the City Council
with a recommendation for approval finding that the project is compatible with existing land uses
and in compliance with adopted land use policies and goals including City Plan 2030 and the
Planned Zoning District ordinance as follows:
Future Land Use Plan Designation: City Neighborhood Area. City neighborhood areas are
more densely developed than residential neighborhood areas and provide a varying mix of
nonresidential and residential uses. This designation supports the widest spectrum of uses
and encourages density in all housing types, from single family to multifamily.
This land use designation provides a great deal offlexibility, allowing a multitude offactors
to be considered when reviewing land use changes. As noted herein over half of this site is
already zoned for multi family housing up to 40 units per acre and with a height allowance
of 60 feet. The entire west side of the property is bordered by RMF-24 zoning, also with a
height allowance of 60 feet. The south side of the property is across from university operated
student housing. To the east is an elementary school and to the north is a single-family
neighborhood.
These factors and the central location of this site, creates anticipation for a more dense
housing development. However, an appropriate transition to surrounding properties must
still be provided to provide a project that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood,
G: IETCIDevelopment Services Review120121Development Reviewl 12-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning Commission105-14-
121Comments and Redlines
particularly to the north.
The original proposal did not at all respond to the scale or style of surrounding properties.
This, the third proposal, finally considers the design elements of the dense housing on the
south side of Cleveland and the low density housing on Hall Avenue. The project begins on
the south as a five -story urban housing project, below the 60 foot high allowance, but the
massing begins to break down as the project moves north on Hall. The building walls begin
to move away from the street, green space is increased, building openings become larger, the
building becomes detached in sections, building height is decreased below the 45 foot height
allowance in the underlying zoning, the density is reduced, and building materials transition
from institutional to residential. These changes to the building and site design elements
appropriately bridge two different, but compatible land uses in a relatively short distance
along Hall Avenue.
Goal 1: We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities. The city
should consider mechanisms to ensure quality development and promote appropriate
development that reflects the existing community character ofFayetteville's neighborhoods.
This proposed development provides infill in a well -developed area of Fayetteville with
access to infrastructure that is already available and currently maintained. This development
will increase traffic on surrounding streets. However, residents will be able to walk, bike or
use transit more readily than a project located further away from the campus reducing daily
vehicle trips and reducing the burden on the existing transportation system. This project also
provides an appropriate transition between a variety of land uses, including 5 -story student
housing to the south, a fraternity house to the west, an elementary school to the east and an
established single-family neighborhood on Hall Street.
Goal 2: We will discourage suburban sprawl. For decades, zoning practices have supported
a separation of land uses; in doing so, development has spread across the landscape and
made people solely dependent on the automobile to get from here to there. The impacts of
sprawl have caused increased traffic congestion and health problems due to a lack of
walkable places. By permitting infill development at a higher density than the existing
zoning, this project discourages suburban sprawl on the perimeter of the City and takes
advantage of proximity to existing utility and public infrastructure and services.
Goal 3: We will make traditional town form the standard.
The proposed development will be of traditional form, compact and pedestrian oriented, with
the building located at the street, parking internalized, wide sidewalks, street trees, and eyes
on the street, creating a safer neighborhood environment.
Goal 4: We will grow a livable transportation network. The development will increase
walkability and bicycle facilities, and through building placement, raised intersections and
crosswalks, and wide sidewalks, slow vehicle speeds on Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue.
Goal 5: We will assemble an enduring green network. Development of the site will decrease
the amount of greenspace and tree canopy on the site. The applicant has proposed tree
preservation on the west and north sides of the property, including low impact design
G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120121Devetop rent Reviewll2-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning commission l05 -14-
J2 comments and Redlines
features, and provided greenspace for residents and the public adjacent to Hall Avenue.
Goal 6: We will create opportunities for attainable housing. It is unclear what the price
point will be for these residences and this is not something that the city controls. However,
providing a variety of housing types promotes mixed -income neighborhoods where attainable
housing doesn't exist in isolation. Providing a variety of housing types also frees up single-
family houses in existing neighborhoods, providing more opportunities for move -up buyers.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Planning Commission determination of compatibility with existing land uses, and
compliance with adopted land use policies and goals including City Plan 2030 and the
Planned Zoning District for R-PZD 12-4079 Project Cleveland. As described herein, staff
recommends in favor of the project.
THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT PROPOSAL.
2. Planning Commission determination of street improvements. Staff recommends the
following
a. Cleveland Street shall be improved along the project frontage to include two 13
foot travel lanes (26 feet total required for fire aerial apparatus access) and on -
street parallel parking on the north side of the street.
b. Travel lanes shall also be shared cyclist lanes, requiring the installation of
sharrows/chevron symbols in the north and south travel lanes for Cleveland
Street. Symbols shall be installed from Garland Avenue to Oliver Street.
c. An 8' sidewalk shall be constructed along the entire property frontage and
connect to the existing 5' sidewalk in front of the Theta Tau property. The
existing sidewalk between Theta Tau and Razorback shall be removed and
replaced with a 5' sidewalk that is ADA compliant.
d. A raised intersection shall be constructed at Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue
with a patterned concrete/asphalt and embedded lighting, as indicated on page 21
of the traffic study.
e. A raised crosswalk shall be installed on Hall Avenue near the school's parking lot
entrance. The final location shall be determined based on ADA access
requirements and input from the Fayetteville School District.
f. A crosswalk shall be installed on Hall Avenue at the north end of the project to
connect the sidewalks on the east and west side of Hall.
g. In coordination with the Fayetteville School District, one of the existing
crosswalks on Cleveland Street shall be removed.
h. Due to the extensive utility improvements required and resulting trenching on
Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, the developer shall also be required to mill and
overlay Hall Avenue along the property frontage. The remaining areas shall be
inspected after construction with the city reserving the right to require either street
patching or a similar milling and overlay in these areas.
i. (Offered by applicant) A separated climbing lane shall be installed on the south
G; ETCIDevelopmenl Services Review120121Developmenl Review12-4079LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning Co nmissionl05-14-
121Commenls and Redlines
side of Cleveland from Sang to Oliver, with sharrows provided on the north side
of the street. The bike lane will be separated from the east -bound travel lane by a
6" curb, with openings provided at existing driveways and streets, and for
drainage. The existing centerline shall be removed and relocated based on the
adjusted centerline of the travel lanes.
THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED
STREET IMPROVEMENTS. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN EXPANDED
SINCE THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDED STREET
IMPROVEMENTS AS PRESENTED, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT'S OFFER TO
CONSTRUCT ACLIMBING LANE ON CLEVELAND FROM SANG TO OLIVER.
3. Planning Commission determination of compliance with Urban Residential Design
Standards. Staff finds that the proposed building elevations meet the requirements for
multi family design standards. The applicant has committed through the PZD process to
comply with the requirements of the Downtown Design Overlay District (DDOD), which
are stricter design standards. The current building design also complies with these
design standards. Additional construction level information is always necessary to fully
review for compliance with DDOD standards.
THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING
ELEVATIONS.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE BUILDING AS DESIGNED.
4. Heavy construction vehicles shall not be permitted to use Cleveland Street west of the
project or Hall Avenue north of the project. Construction traffic, other than passenger
vehicles, shall use Garland as the primary point of access.
5. All off -site utility upgrades and extensions determined necessary by the City of
Fayetteville to serve this development shall be completed at the time of development,
prior to certificate of occupancy permits.
6. Parks fees in the amount of $38,320 shall be paid prior to building permit approval.
7. Pursuant to the phasing schedule provided in the project booklet, all permits necessary to
begin construction shall be obtained within 18 months from the date of City Council
approval of the PZD. A final certificate of occupancy shall be obtained within 42 months
from the date of building permit approval.
8. Any proposed fencing shall be indicated on construction plans to ensure compliance with
applicable development and design standards.
9. All tree preservation, landscape, engineering and fire department conditions included
herein shall apply.
G_ IETCIDevelopmen[ Services Revtew120121Developrnent ReviewL'2-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning Commisrian105-14-
121Comments and Redlines
Standard conditions of approval:
10. Impact fees for fire, police, water, and sewer shall be paid in accordance with City
ordinance.
11. If applicable, a business license shall be obtained prior to opening the business to the
public.
12. Street signs are required to be installed on each private street where buildings are
addressed. These signs shall be installed at the owner's expense and should meet
MUTCD requirements. Please contact the City's Address Coordinator, Susan Pierce at
479-575-8391. Address numbers shall also be required on both sides of each structure, or
as determined appropriate by the Fire Department.
13. Plat Review and Subdivision comments (to include written staff comments provided to
the applicant or his representative, and all comments from utility representatives: AR
Western Gas, SWBT, Ozarks, SWEPCO, Cox Communications).
14. Staff approval of final detailed plans, specifications and calculations (where applicable)
for grading, drainage, water, sewer, fire protection, streets (public and private),
sidewalks, parking lot(s) and tree preservation. The information submitted for the plat
review process was reviewed for general concept only. All public improvements are
subject to additional review and approval. All improvements shall comply with City's
current requirements.
15. All exterior lights shall comply with the City lighting ordinance. Manufacturer's cut -
sheets are required for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit.
16. All mechanical/utility equipment (roof and ground mounted) shall be screened using
materials that are compatible with and incorporated into the structure. A note shall be
clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents indicating this
requirement.
17. Trash enclosures shall be screened on three sides with materials complimentary to and
compatible with the principal structure. Elevations of the proposed dumpster enclosure
shall be submitted to the Planning and Solid Waste Divisions for review prior to building
permit. A note shall be clearly placed on the plat and all construction documents
indicating this requirement.
18. All existing utilities below 12kv shall be relocated underground. All proposed utilities
shall be located underground. A note shall be clearly placed on the plat and all
construction documents indicating this requirement.
19. All freestanding and wall signs shall comply with ordinance specifications for location,
size, type, number, etc. Any proposed signs shall be permitted by a separate sign permit
application prior to installation. Freestanding pole signs and electronic message boards
(direct lighting) are prohibited in the Design Overlay District.
G: IETCIDevelopment Services Review 120121Development Reviewll2-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning Cammission105-14-
121Comments and Redlines
20. Prior to building permit, a cost estimate for all required landscaping is to be submitted to
the Urban Forester for review. Once approval is gained, a guarantee is to be issued
(bond/letter of credit/cash) for 150% of the cost of the materials and installation of the
plants. This guarantee will be held until the improvements are installed and inspected, at
the time of Certificate of Occupancy.
21. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the following is required:
a. Grading and drainage permits
b. An on -site inspection by the Urban Forester of all tree protection measures prior
to any land disturbance.
c. Separate easement plat for this project that shall include the tree preservation area
and all utility easements.
d. Project Disk with all final revisions
e. One copy of final construction drawings showing landscape plans including tree
preservation measures submitted to the Urban Forester.
f. Completion of all required improvements or the placement of a surety with the
City (letter of credit, bond, escrow) as required by Section 158.01 "Guarantees in
Lieu of Installed Improvements" to guarantee all incomplete improvements.
Further, all improvements necessary to serve the site and protect public safety
must be completed, not just guaranteed, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Planning Commission Action: Cl Approved O Tabled 'I Forwarded
Meeting Date: May 14, 2012
Motion: Honchell
Second: Hoskins
Vote: 7-1-0 (Pennington voting 'no')
Findings associated with R-PZD 12-4079 (Project Cleveland)
Sec. 166.06. Planned Zoning Districts (PZDI
(E) Approval or Rejection Criteria for Planned Zoning Districts
The following criteria shall be considered by the Planning Commission and City Council in the
review of a planned zoning district application based on the proposed master development plan:
(1) Whether the application is in compliance with the requirements of the UDC and the City
Plan 2030;
G: IETCIDeve(opment Services Review12012I)evelapment Review172-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland) 07 Planning Commission105-14-
121Comments and Redlines
FINDING: Staff finds that many aspects of the development proposal to be consistent with
the Unified Development Code and City Plan 2030. The future land use map designates the
property as a City Neighborhood Area, which is characterized as more densely populated
than residential neighborhood areas, providing a mix of nonresidential and residential
uses. This designation supports the widest specturm of uses and encourages density in all
housing types, from single family to multifamily. Setbacks and landscaping are urban in
form with street trees typically being located within the sidewalk zone. The proposal is for
a multifamily development across the street from the University of Arkansas, providing
residents the oppotunity to walk, bike or use transit to reach any part of the campus.
Shopping opportunities are also within walking distance of this development, allowing
residents to be less dependent on the automobile. The development, while more dense than
the existing land uses, oppropriately bridges multi -story housing and an established single-
family neighborhood.
(2) Whether the application is in compliance with all applicable statutory provisions;
FINDING: The application has been reviewed and found to be in compliance with all
applicable statutory provisions.
(3) Whether the general impact of the rezoning would adversely impact the provision of
public facilities and services;
FINDING: The street infrastructure in the area is adequate to serve this development.
Cleveland Street is currently a high volume collector street, due to the access the street
provides to the university, Leverett Elementary and several intersecting neighborhood
streets. The development will also have access to Garland Avenue and Razorback Road,
two primary connecting streets. The water and sewer infrastructure is currently
inadequate to serve this density. However, the developer will be required to upgrade
several lines on Cleveland and Hall to support the development. These upgrades will
extend the life span of the utility network, reducing long term maintenance and
replacement costs. Increased capacity also allows for future infill development in the area.
(4) Whether the rezoning is compatible with the surrounding land uses;
FINDING: In staffs opinion the proposed rezoning is compatible with surrounding zoning
and land uses when all existing conditions are considered. The primary density is occuring
on property that is already zoned RMF-40 and with a 60' heigh allowance. The remainder
of the property is zoned RSF-4. However, the property to the west of both zoning districts
is zoned RMF-24, also with a 60' height allowance. The building mass is greatly reduced as
it moves into the RSF-4 zoning area, the building walls are broken down and the interior of
the site is opened up to the neighborhod. Only adjacent to the RMF-24 zoning district
along the west property line does the building increase in height back to 5 stories, but still
under the 45' limit in RSF-4. The building design appropriately bridges two different, but
compatible land uses over a short distance.
(5) Whether the subject land is suitable for the intended use and is compatible with the
natural environment;
G-'IETCIDevelopment Services Review12012IDevelopment Review )12-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland) 07 Planning Commission105-14-
121Comments and Redlines
FINDING: Over half of the subject property is already zoned for 40 units per acre and a
height allowance of up to 60'. The property is also adjacent to univeristy housing, RMF-24
zoning to the west, and an elementary school to the east. In staff's opinion, a multi -family
development on this property, with appropriate transition to the single-family
neighborhood, is an appropriate land use. The tree preservation plan is below what is
required for a planned zoning district. However, there are a number of quality, large
species trees that will be preserved at the southwest corner and along the north property
line, providing a natural buffer between the development and the property immediately
north.
(6) Whether the intended land use would create traffic congestion or burden the existing road
network;
FINDING: Cleveland Street is a high volume collector street with approximately 7,500
average daily trips. The existing volumes are due to the high number of residential streets
that intersect Cleveland, and the access that the street provides to the university campus
and elementary school. This development will increase traffic on Cleveland, Hall, Garland
and other local streets in the area. However, as indicatedby the traffic study, all vehicle
movements for the projected traffic conditions at the study intersections are expected to
continue to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the worst -
case AM, school PM and typical PM peak hours. In fact only one intersectin will decline
due to the development - Hall Avenue, which will decrease from a LOS "B" to a LOS "C."
Based on this information, it is staffs opinion that the proposed development will not
unduly burden the existing road network.
(7) Whether the planned development provides for unified development control under a
unified plan;
FINDING: The project booklet and plans provide for a unified development under a
unified development plan.
(8) Whether any other recognized zoning consideration would be violated in this PZD.
FINDING: No other zoning considerations are proposed to be violated.
Sec. 161.29 Planned Zoning District
(A) Purpose. The intent of the Planned Zoning District is to permit and encourage
comprehensively planned developments whose purpose is redevelopment, economic development,
cultural enrichment or to provide a single -purpose or mixed -use planned development and to permit
the combination of development and zoning review into a simultaneous process. The rezoning of
property to the PZD may be deemed appropriate if the development proposed for the district can
accomplish one or more of the following goals.
(1) Flexibility. Providing for flexibility in the distribution of land uses, in the density of
development and in other matters typically regulated in zoning districts.
G: IETCIDevelopmen[ Services Review12012IDevelopmenl ReviewL'2-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland) 07 Planning Comnission105-14-
121Comments and Redlines
(2) Compatibility. Providing for compatibility with the surrounding land uses.
(3) Harmony. Providing for an orderly and creative arrangement of land uses that are
harmonious and beneficial to the community.
(4) Variety. Providing for a variety of housing types, employment opportunities or
commercial or industrial services, or any combination thereof, to achieve variety and
integration of economic and redevelopment opportunities.
(5) No negative impact. Does not have a negative effect upon the future development of
the area;
(6) Coordination. Permit coordination and planning of the land surrounding the PZD and
cooperation between the city and private developers in the urbanization of new lands
and in the renewal of existing deteriorating areas.
(7) Open space. Provision of more usable and suitably located open space, recreation
areas and other common facilities that would not otherwise be required under
conventional land development regulations.
(8) Natural features. Maximum enhancement and minimal disruption of existing natural
features and amenities.
(9) General Plan. Comprehensive and innovative planning and design of mixed use yet
harmonious developments consistent with the guiding policies of the General Plan.
(10) Special Features. Better utilization of sites characterized by special features of
geographic location, topography, size or shape.
FINDING: The proposal is for a multi -family development that provides flexibility in
design to achieve compatibility with a variety of land uses and zoning districts, and
harmonious interaction between two different, but compatible land uses. The building
design along with the proposed street improvements will decrease the impact of the
development on the surounding street network and adjacent properties. Green space has
been provided along the interior and exterior of the development as a way to open the
development up to the neighborhood, and several large species trees are planned for
preservation along the southwest and north property lines. As noted herein, it is staffs
opinion that the proposed development is consistent with the city's adopted land use
policies and the planned zoning district ordinance.
(B) Rezoning. Property may be rezoned to the Planned Zoning District by the City Council in
accordance with the requirements of this chapter and Chapter 166, Development. Each rezoning
parcel shall be described as a separate district, with distinct boundaries and specific design and
development standards. Each district shall be assigned a project number or label, along with the
designation "PZD". The rezoning shall include the adoption of a specific master development plan
and development standards.
(C) R — PZD, Residential Planned Zoning District.
G-16TCIDevelopment Services Review120121Developmenl Review112-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning CommissiontOi-14-
l21 Co,mnents and Redlines
(1) Purpose and intent. The R-PZD is intended to accommodate mixed -use or clustered
residential developments and to accommodate single -use residential developments that are
determined to be more appropriate for a PZD application than a general residential rezone.
The legislative purposes, intent, and application of this district include, but are not limited to,
the following:
(a) To encourage a variety and flexibility in land development and land use for
predominately residential areas, consistent with the city's City Plan 2025 and the orderly
development of the city.
(b) To provide a framework within which an effective relationship of different land uses and
activities within a single development, or when considered with abutting parcels of land,
can be planned on a total basis.
(c) To provide a harmonious relationship with the surrounding development, minimizing
such influences as land use incompatibilities, heavy traffic and congestion, and excessive
demands on planned and existing public facilities.
(d) To provide a means of developing areas with special physical features to enhance natural
beauty and other attributes.
(e) To encourage the efficient use of those public facilities required in connection with new
residential development.
FINDING: The proposed planned zoning district will allow flexibility in land use in a
predominantly residential area consistent with City Plan 2030; provide a framework that
promotes an effective relationship between different, but compatible land uses; provide a
harmonious relationship with surrounding development by minimizing land use
incompatibilities, heavy traffic congestion and excessive demands on existing public
facilities; provide a means to densely develop an area with existing tree canopy; and
encourage the efficient use of public facilities.
(2) Permitted Uses. All permitted uses identified within § 162 Use Units of the Unified
Development Code shall be allowed as permissible uses, unless otherwise specified, subject
to City Council approval of the Planned Zoning District request.
(3) Conditional Uses. All conditional uses allowed within (Residential, Commercial, Industrial)
zoning Districts established in the Unified Development Code shall be allowed with Planning
Commission approval, unless otherwise specified, subject to the code governing Conditional
Use requests.
(4) Condition. In no instance shall the residential use area be less than fifty-one percent (51%)
of the gross floor area within the development.
FINDING: The residential uses on this property will be at least fifty-one percent of the gross
floor area within the development.
G: IETCIDeve(opnem Services Review120121Development ReviewI12-4079 LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning Commission105-14-
121Comments and Redlines
(F) Bulk and area regulations
(1) Residential density. Residential densities shall be determined on the basis of the following
considerations:
(a) The densities of surrounding development;
(b) the densities allowed under the current zoning;
(c) the urban development goals and other policies of the city's General Plan;
(d) the topography and character of the natural environment; and
(e) the impact of a given density on the specific site and adjacent properties.
(2) Lot area and setback requirements. Taking into consideration the unique aspects of each
project, preliminary development plans for Planned Zoning Districts shall conform as closely
as possible to the existing standards for lot area minimums and setback requirements under
this chapter.
(3) Building height. There shall be no maximum building height except as may be determined
by the Planning Commission during the review of the preliminary development plan based on
the uses within the development and the proximity of the development to existing or
prospective development on adjacent properties. A lesser height may be established by the
Planning Commission when it is deemed necessary to provide adequate light and air to
adjacent property and to protect the visual quality of the community.
(4) Building area. The Planning Commission shall review specific proposed lot coverages
which generally correspond to the guidelines for lot coverage in the respective residential,
office, commercial or industrial district which most depicts said development scheme.
Required Findings for Rezoning Request.
FINDINGS OF THE STAFF
A determination of the degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use
planning objectives, principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans.
Finding: Staff finds many aspects of the development proposal to be consistent with the
UDC and City Plan 2030. The future land use map designates the property as a City
Neighborhood Area, which is characterized as more densely populated than residential
neighborhood areas, providing a mix of nonresidential and residential uses. This
designation supports the widest specturm of uses and encourages density in all housing
types, from single family to multifamily. Setbacks and landscaping are urban in form with
street trees typically being located within the sidewalk zone. The proposal is for a
multifamily development across the street from the University of Arkansas, providing
residents the oppotunity to walk, bike or use transit to reach any part of the campus.
Shopping opportunities are also within walking distance of this development, allowing
residents to be less dependent on the automobile. The development, while more dense than
the existing land uses, proposes an oppropriate bridges multi -story housing and an
established single-family neighborhood.
G:IETCIDevelopment Services Review120121Deve! opment Review12-4079LSD (Project Cleveland)107 Planning Commission105-14-
12lComments and Redlines
2. A determination of whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the
rezoning is proposed.
Finding: The property is currently zoned RMF-40 and RSF-4, which allows many aspects
of the proposed development, but not across the zoning boundary line. The proposed
rezoning is necessary to allow the multi -family development to extend north across the
three existing single-family properties.
3. A determination as to whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and
thereby undesirably increase the load on public services including schools, water, and sewer
facilities.
Finding: The proposed development will increase the number of dwelling units on the
property from 64 to 122, a significant increase in population density. However, as noted
herein, the development will not undesirable increase the load on public services including
schools, water, and sewer. The project is proposed to provide housing for university
students, and with the recent increase in enrollment, this type of housing is expected and
needed, especially this close to the university campus. The existing water and sewer lines
will be upgraded to serve this development, extending the life span of the lines and
decreasing long term maintenance and replacement costs.
4. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of
considerations under b (1) through (4) above, a determination as to whether the proposed
zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as:
a. It would be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted
under its existing zoning classifications;
b. There are extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning even
though there are reasons under b (1) through (4) above why the
proposed zoning is not desirable.
Finding: N/A
G-IEI'CiDevelopment Services Review120121Development Reviewi2-4079 LSD (P,vjecl Cleveland)107 Planning Commission105-14-
121Comments and Redlines
ajTP Ptl1 1P
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
125 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
To: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner May 9, 2012
From: Glenn Newman, P.E.
Staff Engineer
Re: Plat Review Comments May 14, 2012 — Planning Committee Meeting)
Development: LSD 12-4079 Project Cleveland
Engineer: MCE Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Special Comments:
1. It is engineering's understanding that the Rain Gardens are for Educational purposes only and may not
be designed in accordance with the new City's Draft LID Manual.
2. Structural engineer will be required to acknowledge the drainage plan, including the ponding adjacent to
the building, the rain gardens, underground detention, storm drainage underneath the slab, etc..
3. The civil engineer of record and owner have offered to exceed the requirements of the Drainage Criteria
Manual to capture the offsite runoff between the proposed structure and the existing retaining wall west
of the project and route the flow under the structure. Engineer of record indicated this will have a
"large" factor of safety.
Standard Comments:
1. All designs are subject to the City's latest design criteria (water, sewer, streets and drainage). Review
for plat approval is not approval of public improvements, and all proposed improvements are subject to
further review at the time construction plans are submitted.
2. Any damage to the existing public street due to construction shall be repaired/replaced at the
owner/developers expense.
3. The engineer of record shall provide "Full Time" inspection for utilities and "Part Time" inspection for
the storm drainage and roadway construction for this project. — Weekly reports should be submitted to
the City of Fayetteville's public works inspector. — This includes the Fire Line Installation.
4. Water and sewer impact fees will apply for the additional impact to the system. The fees will be based
on the proposed meter size and will be charged at the time of meter set.
5. Fire Line monthly fees will be applied based on the size of the riser penetrating the slab. See Chapter
51.136 of the Unified Development Code for table of fees associated with pipe diameter.
6. Prior to engineering approval of the building permit, either the required public improvements must be
installed and accepted, or performance bonds in the amount of 150% of the construction cost for all
public improvements must be submitted, accompanied by a unit price estimate approved by the
Engineering Division.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf TDD (479) 521-1316 ]I3 West Mountain- FajetteviIle, AR 72701
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
1455 5 Happy Hollow Rd
ic eyelteville, A R 7270?
. , PG191444 3411 F1479152)d114
URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION —Chapter 167
To: McClelland Consulting Engineers, Leslie Tabor
CC: Jesse Fulcher. Current Planner
From: Megan Dale, Urban Forester/Landscape Administrator
Date: 14 May 2012
Subject: PZD 12-4079: Project Cleveland Planning Commission Review Comments
Requirements Submitted:
N
Initial Review with the Urban Forester
Y
Site Analysis Map Submitted
Y
Site Analysis Written Report Submitted
Y
Complete Tree Preservation Plan Submitted
Y
Tree Mitigation Form Submitted
N/A
Tree Preservation Wavier Submitted
Canopy Measurements:
Totat Site Area (minus. Master Street Plan ROW'and n9dkated Parkland}
acres
2.60
square feet
113,200
ExistingTree (mmuge.isnneeatementsf
acres
0.52
square feet
22,520
percent of site area
19.8%
Tree Canopy Preserved
acres
0.17
square feet
7,789
percent of total site area
6.8%
Site Percent Min. Canopy Required
25%
Page! of 3
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Mitigation: Required -
Canopy Below
Required
Preservation
Priori 1T a
Forestation Base
Density ft2
Number of 2" caliper
trees to beplanted
14,461 ft2
High Priority
218
66
ft2
Mid -Priority
290
ft2
Low Priority
436
On -site Mitigation = 16 trees
Tree Escrow = 50 trees at $675 = $33,750
Mitigation Type Requested:
® On -Site ❑ Off -Site ® Tree Escrow
Mitigation Type Requested Approved: ® YES ❑ NO
TREE PROTECTION PLAN CHECKLISTS AND COMMENTS:
Plan Checklist:
NA = not applicable
Yes = submitted by applicant
No = required by City Code but not included on submitted plan
The Site Analysis Plan 167.04 H 1
Tech Plat
SD
PC
Site Analysis Plan Components
Y
Y
Y
5 year aerial check on existing trees
Y
Y
Y
Property Boundary
Y
N
Y
Natural Features 100ft beyond property line shown
Y
Y
Y
Existing Topography with slopes < 15% highlighted
Y
Y
Y
Soils
N
Y
Y
Significant Tree(s): 24", 18" and 8" DBH
N
Y
Y
Table listing Sig. Trees with species, size, health
N/A
N/A
N/A
Grouping of Trees: all other trees that do not meet significant
requirements
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table listing Grouped Trees with average species, size, health
N
Y
Y
All existing utilities
N/A
N/A
N/A
All perennial and intermittent streams with approximate center line
N/A
N/A
N/A
s
Floodplains/Floodways
Y
Y
Y
Existing street, sidewalk or bike path ROW
Y
Y
Y
Submitted Site Analysis Plan
❑ Not Requested Yet
Page 2 of 3
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
The Analysis Plan Report f167.04(H1(4)1
Tech Plat
SD
PC
Analysis Plan Report Components
Detail Design Approaches used to minimize damage to OR
N
Y
Y
removal of existing canopy
N
Y
Y
Justification for removal of individual or groupings of trees/canopy
Details providing information on on -site mitigation OR off -site
N
Y
V
alternatives
Y
Y
Y
Submitted Analysis Report
Tree Preservation Plan 1167.04(HH211
Tech Plat
SD
PC
Tree Preservation Plan Components
Y
Y
Y
Shows ALL Proposed Site Improvements
Y
Y
Y
Delineates trees/canopy to be preserved and removed
Y
Y
Y
Depict limits of soil disturbance
Detail measures that will be used to protect trees during
construction:
Y Y Y
1. Tree Protection Fencing _ _ _ _ _ _
N Y Y
2. Limits of Root Pruning
N N N
3. Traffic flow on work site
NN N
4. Location of material storage_
N N N
5. Location of concrete wash out
N N N
6. Location of construction entrance/exit
N
Y
Y
Location of ALL existing and new utility/drainage easements
TREE PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION PLAN COMMENTS:
1. All items above marked with "N" and redlines need to be addressed prior to approval.
2. Label Tree Preservation Easement on this plan.
3. Show traffic flow on work site, material storage and concrete wash out area.
4. Prior to Building Permit approval, all required landscaping will require a performance bond and a completed
Landscape Surety Form. Submit a landscape estimate for review at time of construction plan review.
5. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a 3 -year Maintenance Plan must be submitted with a 3 -year surety (letter of
credit, bond or cash) and completed Landscape Surety Form.
rdgL J UI .
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
PARKS AND RECREATION DIVISION
y HS S Happy Hollow Rd
Fayetteville, AR 72701
,.... o...c..0 P1419144+3411 FIaJ152 F-JJIa
AN5AS
URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION
LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS — Chapter 177
To: McClelland Consulting Engineers, Leslie Tabor
From: Megan Dale, Urban Forester/Landscape Administrator
CC: Jesse Fulcher, Current Planner
Date: 14 May 2012
Subject: PZD 12-4079: Project Cleveland Planning Commission Review Comments
Applicable Requirements:
y
Site Development & Parking. Lot Standards:..
Y
Street Tree Planting Standards:
NSA
Stormwater'Facilities
Plan Checklist:
Y= submitted by applicant
N=required by City Code but not included on submitted plan
NA= not applicable
Tech Plat
Sc
PC
All Landscape Plans
Irrigation notes either automatic or hose bib 100o.c.
Y
Y
Y
177.03A.7. & 177.04.B.3.a)
Y
Y
Y
Species of plant material identified (177.03.A.7.d & e)
Size of plant material at time of installation indicated minimum size 2" caliper for
Y
Y
Y
trees and 3 a1. shrubs 177.03.A.7.b & c)
Y
Y
Y
Soil amendments notes include that soil is amended and sod removed (177.03.C.6.b)
Mulch notes indicate organic mulching around trees and within landscape beds
Y
Y
Y
(177.03.C.6.c & d)
LSD and Subdivisions plans stamped by a licensed Landscape Architect, others
N
Y
Y
by Landscape Designer(177.03.B)
Planting bed contained by edging
NA
NA
NA
177.03.C.6.
N
Y
Y
Planting details according to Fayetteville's Landscape Manual (177.03.C.6.g)
I".•. Icy 11cc 9-cf •D1 .__. -_
Page 1 of2
THE CITY CF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Tech Plat
SC
PC
Site Development & Parking Lot Standards
NA
NA
NA
Wheel stops! curbs (177.04.B.1)
Interior landscaping (177.04.0)
Narrow tree lawn (8' min width, 37,5' min length/1 tree per 12 spaces) OR
NA
NA
NA
Tree island (8' min. width, 18.7' min. lenght/1 tree per 12 spaces)
All parking lot trees must be deciduous(177.04.C.3)
Y
Y
Y
Placement of Trees (177.04.0.2)
Either side at points of access(entrance/exit)
Perimeter landscaping (177.04.D)
Side and rear property lines (5' wide landscaped)
Front property line (15' wide landscape) (177.04.D.2.a)
Y
Y
Y
Shade trees planted on south and west sides of parking lots (177.04.D.2.e)
Parking lot adjacent to R.O.W.- continuous row planting of shrubs - 50% evergreen.
Remaining landscaping to be ground cover and / or turf.) (177.04.D.4a)
NOTE: Shade trees are described in street tree planting standards
Street Tree Planting Standards (time of F.P. or permit) (177.05)
Residential Subdivisions- 1 large species shade tree! lot tree planted within R.O. W.
NA
NA
NA
if possible
Nonresidential Subdivision- 1 large species shade treel30 L.F. tree planted within
Y
Y
Y
15-25' greenspace
Urban Tree Wells -urban streetscape only- 8' sidewalk , trees every 30 L.F.
Y
Y
Y
177.05.B.3.a-
Structural Soil -if urban wells are used, a note or detail of structural soil must be
N
Y
Y
indicated on the landscape plan
NA
NA
NA
Timing of planting indicated on plans (subdivisions only) 177.05.A.4
NA
NA
NA
Written description of the method for tracking plantings (177.05.A.4.e)
Plan contains 3 -year Maintenance and Monitoring Agreement. The owner shall
Y
Y
Y
deposit with the City of Fayetteville a surety for approved landscape estimate.
(177.05.A.2.e)
Tech Plat
SC
PC
Stormwater Facilities (time of F.P. orpermit) (177.06.A — C
NA
NA
NA
1 deciduous or evergreen tree! 3000 square feet
NA
NA
NA
4 large shrubs or small trees (3 gal) 13000 square feet
NA
NA
NA
6 shrubs or grasses (1 gal)13000 square feet
NA
NA
NA
Ground cover unless seed or sod is specified
NA
NA
NA
50% of facility lanted with grass or grass like plants
Conditions of Approval:
1. Prior to Building Permit approval, all required landscaping will require a performance bond and a completed
Landscape Surety Form. Submit a landscape estimate for review at time of construction plan review.
2. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, a 3 -year Maintenance Plan must be submitted with a 3 -year surety (letter of
credit, bond or cash) and completed Landscape Surety Form.
Page 2 of 2
Date 4/3/12
Jeremy Pate
Zoning and Development Director
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Director Pate,
This document is in response to the request for comments on the proposed R-PZD 12-
4079 (NW corner of W. Cleveland Street & Hall Avenue / Project Cleveland, 443)
submitted by McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. for property located at the NW
corner of W. Cleveland and Hall.
I had previously expressed concern for traffic safety and congestion. It appears that the
developer has reduced the project's density, conducted a traffic survey, met with and
received the support from the school, and taken numerous other steps to minimize my
concerns about this project.
Sincerely,
Captain William Brown
Fayetteville Police Department
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
p PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
113 West Mountain
1 Fayetteville, AR 72701
.r -..., p14791 444-3471 F1479)521-7714
TO: Planning Division
FROM: Carole Jones, Park Planner II
DATE: April 30, 2012
SUBJECT: Parks & Recreation Subdivision Committee Review Comments
Meeting Date: May 3, 2012
Item: RPZD 12-4079 (Project Cleveland/1236 W. Cleveland St., 443)
Park District: SW
Zoned: RSF-4 and RMF-24
Billing Name & Address: Specialized Real Estate Group
1200 Shipley Street
Springdale, AR 72764
Current Land Dedication Requirement Money in Lieu
Single Family @ 0.024 acre per unit = acres @ $960 per unit = $
Multi Family @ 0.017 acre per unit = acres 122 @ $680 per unit = $82,960
COMMENTS:
• On March 5, 2012 PRAB reviewed the project and recommended accepting money in lieu for 222 multi-
family units to satisfy the park land dedication ordinance due to the development's proximity to Lewis
Soccer Complex, Wilson Park, Hotz Park and Scull Creek Trail.
• Credit will be given for the existing 60 multi -family units and the existing four single family homes.
• Fees in the amount of $38,320 are due as calculated below:
Calculation: 122 multi family units proposed (total) X $680/per unit = $ 82,960
Credit for 60 existing multi family units X $680/per unit = - $ 40,800
Credit for 4 existing single family units X $960/per unit = - $ 3,840
_ $ 38,320 (balance)
• The actual amount of fees will be based on the type (single family or multi -family) and number of units.
Fees must be paid prior to signing of final plat or issuing of building permits.
w::ic D el<ce ticDeal -» v4 _ ., wst nr rti Fcy:,t e AR'i?'?7
TRAFFIC STUDY
PETERS AND ASSOCIATES
MARCH 13-15, 2012
I I Elff( rX frr r
Cleveland Street at Hall Avenue consists of an eastbound
lane and a westbound lane. Just east of Hall Avenue, Cleve-
land Street widens to a three lane roadway consisting of an
eastbound lane, a westbound lane and a bi-directional center
left -turn lane. This roadway is asphalt and constructed with
curbs and gutters. There are sidewalks along both sides of
Cleveland Street in the vicinity of Garland Avenue and Hall
Avenue. Cleveland Street is classified as a Collector on the
City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan (MSP).
Hall Avenue, north of Cleveland Street, is approximately 24
feet wide with no pavement markings separating the
northbound land southbound lanes. This roadway is asphalt
and constructed with curbs and gutters. There are sidewalks
along both sides of the street in the immediate vicinity of
Cleveland Street and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
Hall Avenue is classified as a Local Street on the City MSP.
The intersection of Cleveland Street and Garland Avenue is
signalized. This is a 6 -phase traffic signal operation with
signal indications mounted on mast arms. The controller is
located on the northwest comer of this intersection. There
are pedestrian crosswalks and pedestrian signal heads on all
four legs of this intersection.
The following photos show the general layout of Hall Ave-
nue, Cleveland Street and Garland Venue. These were taken
at locations as indicated on the photo captions.
I IH & UGUAPfp
Page 4
rLR¢5 k .1�-ulf--�fiF
i rE1 r cz rrr sr
Arkansas Parking Lot Entrance
,king east on Cleveland Street
toward Hall Avenue.
all Avenue
site
Joking south on Hall Avenue
toward Clevland Street.
Cleveland Street
king east on Cleveland Street
toward Garland Avenue.
king north on Garland Avenue
toward Cleveland Street.
Page 5
I r -F Tr f=i:frff r
Hourly, 24 -hour traffic counts were made at the following
locations in the vicinity of the site by this consultant as a part
of this study:
STREET
24 -HOUR
VOLUME
TABLE &
CHART
Cleveland Street Approaches to Hall Aeenue (Two -Way)
7,458
Table 1/Chart 1
Hall Avenue Southbound Approach to Cleveland Street
428
Table 2/Chart 2
Hourly 24 -hour traffic count data for these locations are
summarized on Tables and Charts l and 2.
Other traffic count data collected as a part of this study in-
clude AM, school PM and typical PM peak hours vehicle
turning movement counts at the following intersections:
o Garland Avenue and Cleveland Street
o Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue / parking lot access
drive entrance.
o Cleveland Street and parking lot access drive exit.
The peak hours vehicle turning movement count data at
these intersections are summarized in the following peak
hour turning movement Charts 3 thru 12 and are presented in
more detail in the Appendix of this report. Pedestrian traffic
counts are also included on the count data in the Appendix.
AM and PM peak hours vehicle turning movement counts
made as a part of this study are shown on Figure 3, "Existing
Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours." School PM
peak hours vehicle turning movement counts made as a part
of this study are shown on Figure 3A, "Existing Traffic Vol-
umes - School PM Peak Hour."
I L Inex nss'ui, u'rpF
12
Page 6
TIME
Cleveland Street Approaches to Hall Avenue
Eastbound
Westbound
EB + WB
01:00 PM
133
362
494
02:00 PM
170
393
563
03:00 PM
242
354
596
04:00 PM
296
293
589
05:00 PM
361
337
698
06:00 PM
230
237
467
07:00 PM
172
237
408
08:00 PM
145
230
375
09:00 PM
133
158
292
10:00 PM
117
113
231
11:00 PM
67
88
155
12:00 AM
48
42
90
01:00 AM
20
27
47
02:00 AM
9
6
15
03:00 AM
8
4
11
04:00 AM
1
10
11
05:00 AM
20
33
54
06:00 AM
37
218
255
07:00 AM
154
211
365
08:00 AM
110
204
314
09:00 AM
84
212
297
10:00 AM
103
214
317
11:00 AM
123
269
392
12:00 PM
133
289
422
24 -Hour Total:
2916
4543
7458
Table 2 —Chart 2 24 -Hour Traffic Counts
Hall Avenue Southbound Approach to Cleveland Street
450 a wveand s It Podrduedes to 11411 Awo ma-mnw xouny Vokmee
400 5 k..oIw w
. WooL5ourt
ssd - -
300
0230 I
ill
'200 bIthIt11k1iiilk
• •T T T T T �• F T T4 T T T 4
.d'pMa°p �p o°P a cAQ q �eq q u°dpads�$P d°Tdy °�ds ° cpap°P?
o`. dy. o' P-d+d°.d °°. °y.^. � 0^&-6+d•-oe-r,°'`-A-�' o ry
Hour
40 Haunvanuaooineauweuwaaama eiereianasxem-uamcx00,rovoiwncs.
35 -- _ o SOJNprn]
30
25 _ ��t I�-I` t _
Ill
s I t l '11 _
Ull
o P
T c s •T 5T r S" e t T T S T T
4•T P• P 4• Q P Q 4 4 4` 94 P P �T iv r`T r`T t5 P � Pv' l5 C Q•T
e°o3'•o°\ rp
Hour
Table 1 —Chart 1 24 -Hour Traffic Counts
Cleveland Street Approaches to Hall Avenue
TIME
Hall Avenue Southbound Approach to Cleveland Street
Southbound
01:00 PM
23
02:00 PM
35
03:00 PM
35
04:00 PM
24
05:00 PM
34
06:00 PM
30
07:00 PM
24
08:00 PM
17
09:00 PM
21
10:00 PM
13
11:00 PM
12
12:00 AM
10
01:00 AM
0
02:00 AM
4
03:00 AM
0
04:00 AM
0
05:00 AM
3
06:00 AM
3
07:00 AM
26
08:00 AM
26
09:00 AM
18
10:00 AM
23
11:00 AM
24
12:00 PM
23
24 -Hour Total:U
426
II rtiLS r„i rii t.
Page 7
I r cTr_ i:rrrf r
and an approximate 20 percent reduction in vehicle traffic
during the PM peak hour for this housing type. For Project
Cleveland, a similar vehicle trip reduction is appropriate.
These calculations indicate that approximately 1,321 vehicle
trips (combined in and out) per average weekday are pro-
jected to be generated by the proposed residential student
housing land use on this site. Of this total, approximately 96
vehicle trips are estimated during the traffic conditions of the
AM peak hour, approximately 107 vehicle trips are esti-
mated during the traffic conditions of the school PM peak
hour and approximately 182 vehicle trips are estimated dur-
ing the traffic conditions of the PM peak hour.
Residential traffic, as will be the traffic associated with this
site, ordinarily does contribute to the adjacent street traffic
conditions during the on -street AM peak traffic hour and the
PM peak traffic hour. Additionally, the site is in the vicinity
of an existing elementary school. Accordingly, the AM,
school PM and typical PM peak traffic periods of the adja-
cent streets in the immediate vicinity of the site are the traf-
fic operating conditions which have warranted primary traf-
fic analysis as a part of this study.
�'
AM PEAK HOUR
i.• :l�
'
VOLUME
r
EWER EXIT
Resdenlial Student Apartments 570 Persons 220
1 321
21 75
57 50
118 64
TOTAL ENTERING + EXITING 96 F.1 i
Yolnnres inc/ride reduction In o- affic m account far pedestrian (coffin of 40% dire/erg the AMpeak Ivmv and 20% during /he school and 9pcal PM peak hours
Table 3 —Project Cleveland - Summary of Trip -Generation
ITrPF% R \?FflgsiIN
I ..pael mi
Page 14
o With existing intersection lane geometry and traffic con -
trot at the existing study intersections.
o Project Cleveland Drive A constructed to consist of an
inbound lane and an outbound lane at Flail Avenue.
J
~
j
j"
e
EXISTING TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
'
m
m
m
m
m
m
mP'
p•
v
w
w
w
3
3
3
z
z
a
ww
,pt
$ d
,i .c
ikq- "
ail` �Ir
.!--."-
._ "-
fl
----
AM
.
C
C-
C
C
A B
A
A ftB
School PM
C
C
C
C
B B
B
B ft B
Garland Avenue and Cleveland Street
PM
D
C
CC
C C
B
C C
AM
A
A
B n/a
School PM
A
A
B nla
Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue
Ay
PM
A
A
B n/a
PM
C 2
A
A
B
A
n/a
School PM
A
A
B
B
- - n/a
Cleveland Street and Parking Lot EAt
~�y
PM
A
A
C
B
n/a
Table 4 - Level of Service Summary - Existing Traffic Conditions
J
C
• • • • •
J
r
C
F
K
J
f
m
j
"F.
'.. C ��i • u
V
w
w
3
3
i
z
rz:
a
J,:
t,11 o d
i
r-F'•
In 5
C
CCI
C
A
B
A
B
B
School PM
C
C
C
C
B
B
B
B
B
Garland Avenue and Cleveland Street
cS
PM
DCC
C
C
C
B
C
C
-- —
"
AM
A — -
A
C
n/a
School PM
A
A
C
n/a
Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue
�.y
PM
A
A
C
nla
School PM
A
A
B
A
nla
Cleveland Street and Parking Lot Exit
PM
A
A
C
B
nla
___
AM
G d
A
A
A
nla
School PM
A
A
A
A
nla
Hall Avenue and Drive A
e
PM
A
A
A
A
nla
Table 5 - Level of Service Summary - Projected Traffic Conditions
II
ILIa n.
Page 19
MUTCD Sign W11-2
It was observed that there is considerable pedestrian activity in
the vicinity of this proposed development because of the prox-
imity to the University of Arkansas and Leverett Elementary
School as depicted on the graphic below. Some of the pedestrian
activity included parents of students at Leverett Elementary
School parking in a parking lot on the southwest comer of Gar-
land Avenue and Cleveland Street, then crossing Cleveland
Street to either walk their child into school or pick their child up.
Pedestrian traffic has been included in the capacity and LOS
analysis. Pedestrian traffic should be taken into consideration at
the proposed access drive.
It is recommended to install pedestrian crossing warning signs
per the MUTCD (as shown to the left) for traffic exiting the site
drive approaching Hall Avenue. Also, it is recommended to in-
clude pedestrian crosswalk markings across the site access drive.
Additionally, it is recommended to install a new crosswalk (and
required MUTCD signs) across Hall Avenue near the north edge
of the site. This could be constructed as a raised crosswalk with
embedded LED lights in pavement to also serve to reduce speed
by vehicles on Hall Avenue in the vicinity. Consideration could
be given to include these same type pedestrian crosswalk en-
hancements to existing crosswalks along Cleveland Street, be-
tween Hall Avenue and Garland Avenue due to the existing high
pedestrian activity observed in this area. Examples are shown
on the following page.
Includes flashing warning lights
on EB and WB Approaches
Clayelahtta _
J
EXISTING VICINITY CROSSWALKS
Page 20
Irrftrrf:rrifr
An illuminated crosswalk is a relatively new traffic control device that
is being used throughout the nation to alert approaching motorists to
the presence of pedestrians in or about to enter a marked midblock
crosswalk or at a marked crosswalk on an uncontrolled approach at
an intersection. It consists of a series of lighting units encased in du-
rable housings and embedded in the pavement parallel with the
marked crosswalk. The lights are activated by a pedestrian, either by
pushbutton or passive detection, and are aimed to flash toward ap-
proaching traffic. They serve essentially the same function as tradi-
tional flashing beacons, with the major differences being the location
of the lights and the pedestrian activation feature. These light sys-
tems are known by many names, including in -pavement flashers, in -
pavement flashing lights, pedestrian crosswalk warning systems, pe-
destrian crosswalk lights, crosswalk pavement lights, in -roadway
warning systems, in -roadway lights, in -roadway warning lights,
SMART crosswalks, intelligent road studs, flashing crosswalks,
lighted crosswalks, in -pavement flashers, and "Santa Rosa lights,"
among others. The terminology used in the Manual on Uniform Traf-
fic Control Devices (MUTCD) Section 4, refer to In -Roadway Lights
as In -Roadway Warning Lights (IRWL).
a.
aJ
0
IJ
F)
Page 21
1Art1c;o 001
)A �Ac,ulromeet
•l A occ s
co
AAA occossbliv
I f r 1(Y -<;rrd r
The streets in the vicinity include several crosswalks with re-
quired MUTCD signing. Additionally, there are existing
sidewalks and ADA ramps on surrounding streets. Although
existing street and intersection lane geometry at the study in-
tersections, as a result of traffic operational analysis con-
ducted as a part of this study, has been determined to be ade-
quate, the frontage of the site to public streets should include
pedestrian sidewalk provision as can be expected to be a City
requirement.
There are several items unique to this development listed as
follows:
• Project Cleveland is along the existing Razorback Transit
route. This will facilitate usage by residents and have the
effect of reducing vehicular traffic generation.
• The access drive proposed to serve the Project Cleveland
development will intersect Hall Avenue only with no di-
rect access via Cleveland Street. Access via Hall Avenue
(local street) is better than direct access on higher volume
Cleveland Street (Collector) providing fewer non -site
traffic volume conflicts with ingress and egress to the site.
• There is no on -street parking allowed on Hall Avenue or
on Cleveland Street in the vicinity of the development.
• Existing daily volume on Hall Avenue is approximately
860 vehicles per typical weekday (two-way volume). It is
expected that approximately 25 percent of the site -
generated traffic will utilize Hall Avenue, north of the site
(an additional two-way volume of approximate 330 vehi-
cles per day). The combined total of the projected 1,190
vehicles per day (two-way volume) on Hall Avenue, north
of the site is expected to remain well below the City of
Fayetteville Master Street Plan local street service volume
of less than 4,000 vehicles per day.
II iuem ,
• It is projected that approximately 30 percent of the site -
generated traffic volumes is expected to enter and exit
the proposed site form the west via Cleveland Street. It
is assumed that most, if not all, of this traffic from the
west will be from or destined to the University of Arkan-
sas facilities, thereby using Razorback Road, west of the
site. It is expected that site -generated traffic volumes
will likely not travel west of Razorback Road via Cleve-
land Street unless they are destined to a specific location
in that area.
I'P.I41t< q {cyik. L1'lln
Page 7;
i rr ffr_ rrr r
Findings of this study are summarized as follows:
• Approximately 1,321 vehicle trips (combined in and out)
per average weekday are projected to be generated by the
proposed residential student housing land use on this
site. Of this total, approximately 96 vehicle trips are es-
timated during the traffic conditions of the AM peak
hour, approximately 107 vehicle trips are estimated dur-
ing the traffic conditions of the school PM peak hour and
approximately 182 vehicle trips are estimated during the
traffic conditions of the PM peak hour.
• Capacity and LOS analysis results for existing traffic
conditions for the study intersections indicate existing
vehicle movements for existing traffic conditions at the
study intersections presently operate at what calculates
as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM, school
PM and typical PM peak hours.
• Capacity and LOS analysis results performed for pro-
jected traffic conditions for the AM, school PM and typi-
cal PM peak hours for the study intersections indicate
vehicle movements at the study intersections are ex-
pected to continue to operate at what calculates as an
acceptable LOS "D" or better for the worst -case AM,
school PM and typical PM peak hours.
• Project Cleveland is along the existing Razorback Tran-
sit route. This will facilitate usage by residents and have
the effect of reducing vehicular traffic generation.
• The access drive proposed to serve the Project Cleveland
development will intersect Hall Avenue only with no
direct access via Cleveland Street. Access via Hall Ave-
nue (local street) is better than direct access on higher
volume Cleveland Street (Collector) providing fewer
non -site traffic volume conflicts with ingress and egress
to the site.
11 rfIN ligOCl:Al LF
JR6 I
--
— -- Page 24
i rRtr crrr: r
• Existing daily volume on Hall Avenue is approximately
860 vehicles per typical weekday (two-way volume). It
is expected that approximately 25 percent of the site -
generated traffic will utilize Hall Avenue, north of the
site (an additional two-way volume of approximate 330
vehicles per day). The combined total of the projected
1,190 vehicles per day (two-way volume) on Hall Ave-
nue, north of the site is expected to remain well below
the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan local street
service volume of less than 4,000 vehicles per day.
• It is projected that approximately 30 percent of the site -
generated traffic volumes is expected to enter and exit
the proposed site form the west via Cleveland Street. It
is assumed that most, if not all, of this traffic from the
west will be from or destined to the University of Arkan-
sas facilities, thereby using Razorback Road, west of the
site. It is expected that site -generated traffic volumes
will likely not travel west of Razorback Road via Cleve-
land Street unless they are destined to a specific location
in that area.
Recommendations of this study are summarized as follows:
• It is recommended to construct the site access drives
along Hall Avenue to consist of an inbound lane and an
outbound lane.
• The new access drive intersection along Hall Avenue
must conform City of Fayetteville design standards and
will require approval by the City.
• It is recommended to install pedestrian crossing warning
signs per the MUTCD for traffic exiting the site drive
approaching Hall Avenue. Also, it is recommended to
include pedestrian crosswalk markings at the site access
drive adjacent to Hall Avenue. Additionally, it is recom-
mended to install a new crosswalk (and required
MUTCD signs) across Hall Avenue near the north edge
-'-- -- — - — - Page 2S —
of the site. This could be constructed as a raised cross-
walk with embedded LED lights in pavement to also
serve to reduce speed by vehicles on Hall Avenue in the
vicinity.
• It is recommended that consideration be given to includ-
ing raised crosswalks with embedded LED lights in
pavement enhancements to existing crosswalks along
Cleveland Street, between Hall Avenue and Garland
Avenue due to the existing high pedestrian activity ob-
served in this area.
....,,. Page 26
ZU
CE
Z < LL
m �
m w
H
iQ
Q_
w
I�
I � I
L /
10% GARLAND 25% \..
a I z
w
� zC7�a
u aa
W OJ Y
PKG LOT > D W a.
`utr J O W
OH
. a7 Lu
_ y KG LOT O H W }
J �r`l--'�f-`li - NTRANCE CO
PH
a
M
a
O N
H N
0th
OC-'
Q .
P1567 — Existincr Uses (4 SF Houses and 60 MV U::
Summary of Multi -Use Trip Generation
Average Weekday Driveway Volumes
March 28, 2012
24 hour AM Pk hour PM i'k hour
Two -Way
Land Use Size Volume Enl.er ExiL Enter Exit.
Single Family Detached Housing
4 Dwelling Units 3f3 1 2 3 1
Apartments 60 Dwelling Units 399 P, 25 24 1.1
Total
Driveway
Volume 437
7 2'1
27
14
Total
Peak Hour
Pass -By Trips
0 0
0
C)
Total
Peak Hour
Vol. Added to Adjacent Streets
7 27
27
14
Note: A zero indicates no data available.
TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS
01567 - PROJECT CLEVELAND - FAYETTEVILLE AR
Summary of Trip Generation Calculation
For 570 Persons of Apartments
March 28, 2012
Average
Rate
Standard
Deviation
Adjustment
Factor
Driveway
Volume
Avg. Weekday 2 -Way Volume
3.31
1.99
1.00
1687
7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter
0.06
0.00
1.00
34
7-9 AM Peak Hour Exit
0.22
0,00
1.00
125
7-9 AM Peak Hour Total
0.2B
0.54
1.00
160
4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter
0.26
0,00
1.00
148
4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit
0.14
0.00
1.00
80
4-6 PM Peak Hour Total
0.40
0.65
1.00
228
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter
0.14
0.00
1.00
80
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit
0.16
0.00
1.00
91
AM Pk Hr, Generator, Total
0.30
0,56
1.00
171
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Enter
0.24
0.00
1.00
137
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Exit
0.16
0.00
1.00
91
PM Pk Hr, Generator, Total
0.40
0.64
1.00
228
Saturday 2 -Way Volume
3.24
2.16
1.00
1847
Saturday Peak Hour Enter
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
Saturday Peak Hour Exit
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
Saturday Peak flour Total
0.26
0.52
1.00
148
Sunday 2 -Way Volume
3.06
1.93
1.00
1744
Sunday Peak Hour Enter
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
Sunday Peak Hour Exit
0.00
0.00
1.00
0
Sunday Peak Hour Total
0.26
0.51
1.00
148
Note: A zero indicates no
data
available.
Source: Institute of Transportation
Engineers
Trip Generation, 8th
Edition,
2008.
TRIP GENERATION RY MICROTRANS
TRAFFIC STUDY
PETERS AND ASSOCIATES
MAY3&4,2012
(5/9/2012) Jesse Fulcher - FW: P1567 - Revised Figures - Project Cleveland
Seite 1
From:
"Leslie Tabor" <ltabor@mcclelland-engrs.com>
To:
"Jesse Fulcher" <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
CC:
"Seth Mims"' <seth@mc3multifamily.com>
Date:
5/7/2012 5:09 PM
Subject:
FW: P1567 - Revised Figures - Project Cleveland
Attachments:
P1567-Figures-REV-5-7-12.pdf
Jesse,
Please see the attached and below from Peter's.
Thank you for your patience!
Leslie
Leslie Tabor
McClelland Consulting Engineers
1810 North College Avenue
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703
Phone (479) 443-2377
Fax (479) 443-9241
USGBC Member Logo
Notice: This e-mail may contain privileged and/or confidential information
and is intended only for the addressee. If you are not the addressee or the
person responsible for delivering it to the addressee, you may not copy or
distribute this communication to anyone else. If you received this
communication in error, please notify MCE immediately by telephone or return
email. Please also delete the message from your system in a prompt manner.
From: Randy M. Tolbert [mailto:rmtolbert@traffic-engineers.com]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2012 5:06 PM
To: Leslie Tabor
Cc: E. J. Peters
Subject: P1567 - Revised Figures - Project Cleveland
Leslie,
Attached are PDF copies of the following figures:
Figure 3, "Existing Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours"
(5/9/2012) Jesse Fulcher - FW: P1567 - Revised Figures - Project Cleveland
Seite 2
Figure 3A, "Existing Traffic Volumes - School PM Peak Hour"
Figure 4, "Directional Distribution - Site Traffic"
Figure 5, "Entering Traffic Percentage Turns"
* Figure 6, "Exiting Traffic Percentage Turns
Figure 7, "Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours"
Figure 7A, "Site -Generated Traffic Volumes - School PM Peak Hour"
• Figure 8, "Projected Traffic Volumes - AM and PM Peak Hours"
Figure 8A, "Projected Traffic Volumes - School PM Peak Hour."
We have completed our capacity and level of service analysis for the AM,
school PM and PM peak hours for existing and projected traffic conditions
(projected traffic includes the change in number of residents to 450) for
the following study intersections:
Garland Avenue and Cleveland Street
* Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue / University of Arkansas parking
lot entry access drive
* Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue / University of Arkansas parking
lot exit access drive
* Hall Avenue and Project Cleveland Drive A
* Wedington Drive and Hall Avenue
Cleveland Street and Razorback Road
* Cleveland Street and Sunset Avenue
* Cleveland Street and Oliver Avenue.
It was found that all vehicle movements at the study intersections currently
operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or better for the AM,
school PM and PM peak hours. Traffic volumes used for existing traffic
conditions are shown on the attached Figures 3 and 3A.
It was found that all vehicle movements at the study intersections are
calculated to continue to operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS
"D" or better for the AM, school PM and PM peak hours. Traffic volumes used
for projected traffic conditions are shown on the attached Figures 8 and 8A.
Projected traffic conditions were conducted with the following assumed:
With existing intersection lane geometry and traffic control at the
existing study intersections.
Project Cleveland Drive A constructed to consist of an inbound lane
and an outbound lane at Hall Avenue.
We will have a revised report to you by the end of the day Friday, May 11,
2012. If you have any questions and/or need to discuss in more detail, let
us know. Thanks and have a great day.
(5/912012) Jesse Fulcher - FW: P1567 - Revised Figures - Project Cleveland
Seite 3
Randy Tolbert
<maiito:rmtolbert@traffic-engineers.com> rmtolbertaa traffic-engineers.com
PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC.
5507 Ranch Drive, - Suite 205
Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
Voice: 501-868-3999 (Ext. 103)
Fax- 501-868-9710
NORfH
Z
LU O Q
xx° x
=uU e a
a n d
sn eei n ft {&} i<
> <Issq gsz Z
p leer) o[s
Inn tic U thou) iL
CC
R orJ u
llt[, r L
eneu
R> ax
Rma ri
ul[�
Q W
w,or Z z a y
1 ?H/H.tMLf
>Mw�
=o= HZ Q>
:z) so =o o
W
Iv) ¢ U U e o X a) Q LL
= R> co
m6, w
lil tR � _r
�IMB4LR eq �,f —�
IKI o R R OOC n
suxser Avg 7F, L
6 ilrnn cl
er
a+ernsvr � S �
3 0
U> �
R IaO s[ 2
UL C
U Isel e
__ FZ
do P.m
Z N .
W >
ao
Owaf
NORTH
F O p
a E c'u Q a
ax � p x
O
H:
L
•K
fly:
E I
sv E
I
W
K 2 N
- - — . Kvl1INCE Q Z LL z
p w 0?
W 3
r-41 c
9 <u> HZJ—
.� n rto W 0 H
0
u u
W
�R
R+ranKJcn xo �U
u i
v HLVJFJAYC � � 6f9
e R= JJO__K
I 6
U
O
o> m
dS '
U.:
4' aN [alz
60 6 m
Z N
O0II I
ao
NORTH ui W X'
F D w
OO%N
LL J = G
O
i
QOLU
LL
LLa.
as a
O hill 602 {I 0(ii] 2E
F p
� tl fB6» OCS > C(64f) BSZ Z
4 } Qc
I51) pLZ U U :BLLI S[
\
1md :, I
J Icr m
text
sz) cc > c oU ..
ov r U Uu) zl n U
< > rz
'tirviL° Ut¢1 c
Z
- 'tote,
$ xrx.xcc Q Z d
o*LIILJ
w�0z
�w
Uzl 92 U O o o w p H
i� 9> co o Z W
O H w >
(eo) o. U 00p<
< o> a
w
ge -
N a C u
60 tL
c" cmoo rno
C >
HUgH!
o x.avxxecn xo U=
ozi n U pmzau
c¶ _fl9Vx5CiAl@
>> > Y 0 U(691) 01
�2av3 b..; S 0a
o m v w 0 a o cw
ou__ w
c tdo 2
��uN ao O
2 v O O v L 00 O O O
S UCl)
R¢0 ec U
F 2
ytlJ
UGO v (!$ W
U> n F
ao
Noarx LU W
W?O"<
p Y LL
O > Q
aUa
m =o= Qd
rc ,
A
It H
] _ <,, 0
2
<A= U
va>
ne-
v LL LW
anL
TLufor � LL-.
Z
!IL ' uW
near Z O 0 to
o _ W c O Z¢
W
€ F J O W w
ipE 1 € UHO�
o -w>-
- ed. u= Q U)
E < A= Q. fn
W
o v c F •d.fl
"'
Do
J U G C> y C 6 E NMIO &Acx Rn
c
«
N W U N
CN d 0 V
C
c U_ O= 9UHd£YnyE 3 y [a
_T _
O W N N O C ~O D Aa
>> Y O C W i
D 3 v
ova t
OGYfRAVF W
d o o¢ L w o d 0 r~ F
F jOC1 W 2ONW (J
U Z W> U N N>
2 0«CL W O» tAe cn
n
� z
4'S
G-- r C Z
aN �z
__pdcdm
Z N a
zA
,W
�a
ao
N0R'FN LL z
LL
o
F W
z F
UJ z
W W
z U
z
W W
K1 L Uxsx a
Gkx{lxp T
alt
u U Uxn
m
z
_ N41Or
a
x IxI MCf < Z (n
W O Z
>rwk
k
w O
H
= W
d U p J
z J >
C O W Q w
W p H '—
OF -W}
c CL
W
i xi R
y�
p R6Q0fl10[Kno
n r xIa
# S
9Yk6EIlK
U
OWYEfl AV[. „ W
0 p
c Rx Cl,
a2
z
tox
r W m
0o CLw
ZOc
W N
ao
U �
NORTH LL 7
F w
F W
zF
z
W U
W
=n=
Rcm
SMi
AVE
1F TRJr or
Jr
_, „� ❑ w
If cacr QZd�
2 - � XrXANCE
❑ W
*LTIIJ
P J wO
2
�~❑w
-z--J —
,c.a W ❑H Ct
w
c U
F Ay0XP4Ck Ro, L�
xvxxrr nve ,1
`� /Or�rVERAK
a O
0
Co
ci
z_
m�
n
w z
F U
ci G] z
Z v
U�
ao
xoxni w w Q w
CDo N-
W JO -
Ui
mOW
______ H!
z
�, 1v o <
a
0a
Illtl
le: e
= 4 AALAMD
FVL
I • GlU1 _
`II1\'ll`'i Ylf � Z
}
w
_ xoLer 3 Z (� a c xmexrc < Z
a w Q z
iiiiiiii W
r -r -t
i-
loll 6l " w Q L
D f
OF -w}
9 - (:) u(l)O
t a U)
w
RAzene4[I Xe
y L rlutl L
o E ov
J U c C! "' C p _ Sl1HJFrIK
d yl
U �� >.• O W .L.. T oLVG41Li 14
O d d N O C O D F
!> Y o O a 3 O)4 U
d u c
la
OC CLdrO�a 0III 6p
.0 J� ` 0u
O
0Q U8d> UN N> DEG
Z o.-cr .xio �a U)
N G] z
F
z
ooa r�
Ut!
§} ,
§ LL §#
Bm
0
}
C
10% 25%
.
/2)7
2».\..�. g/ 7 [
z 5
$LJ
w oF—
//I§
w
b,x%
Sw — {,
RAE $
\ci
\
p
TRAFFIC STUDY
SMALL ARROW ENGINEERING, INC.
MAY 1, 2012
JOB NUMBER 12208
Hall & Cleveland
Fayetteville, Arkansas
5/1/2012
Partly Cloudy
SB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
SB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
SB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
WB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
WB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
WB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
EB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
EB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
TOTALS
CARS TRUCKS
7:00AM
2 0
0 0
2 0
1 0
12 1
2 1
7 0
17 1
1 1
44 4
7:15 AM
1 0
0 0
2 0
6 0
42 0
6 0
12 0
28 0
1 2
98 2
7:30 AM
2 0
0 0
6 0
12 0
48 0
6 0
17 0
73 1
8 3
172 4
7:45AM
7 0
2 0
13 0
32 0
53 1
7 0
8 0
49 1
26 1
197 3
8:00 AM
0 0
3 0
6 0
23 0
28' >3
5 0.
5 0
32 1
16 2
118 6
8:15AM
0 0
6 0
1 0
7 0
31 1
6 0
5 0
29 1
11 3
96 5
8:30 AM
1 0
1 0
2 0
11 0
28 1
1 0
3 0
30 0
3 2
80 3
8:45 AM
0 0
0 0
3 0
2 0
43 2
2 0
3 0
35 0
2 1
90 3
PEAKHR
91 0
lii 0
261 0
741 0
1601 5
241 0
35 0
1331 4
611 9
563 18
PEAK HR VOL
9
11
26
74
165
24
35
187
70
601
PEAK HRV➢H
SB
46
WR
263
EB
292
84 CARS
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
96.97%
100.00%
100.00%
97.86%
87.14%
97.00%
%TRUCKS
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.03%
000%
0,00%
2.14%
12.86%
3.00%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.32 0.46 0.50 0.56 0.76 0.86 0.51 0.63 0.65 0.75
Sunny
SB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
SB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
5B RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
WE LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
WR THRU
CARS TRUCKS
W3 RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
EB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
EB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
TOTALS
CARS TRUCKS
4:00 PM
7 0
0 0
6 0
35 0
61 1
3 0
4 0
43 0
6 2
145 3
4:15 PM
1 0
0 0
5 0
7 0
54 1
4 0
4 0
61 1
4 1
140 3
430 PM
0 0
2 0
4 0
3 0
64 1
5 0
2 0
50 0
4 2
134 3
4:45 PM
2 0
0 0
8 0
5 0
69 1
0 0
5 0
54 0
7 0
150 1
500 PM
0 0
1 0
8 0
15 0
103 1
4 0
6 0
-. 49 0
5 2
191 3
515 PM
4 0
0 0
4 0
11 0
78 ` 1
2 0
5 0
56 0
3 2
163 3
5:30 PM
1 0
0 0
5 0
5 0
63 1
2 0
4 0
33 0
1 0
114 1
5:45 PM
0 0
1 0
4 0
3 0
66 0
1 0
S 0
57 0
5 2
142 2
PEAKHR
61 0
31 0
241 0
341
'l 4
UI 0
181 0
2091 0
191 6
6381 10
PEAK HRVOL
6
3
24
34
318
11
18
209
25
646
PEAKHRVPH
56
33
WB
363
EB
252
84 CARS
300.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
98.74%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
76.00%
9846%
84 TRUCKS
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.26%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
24.00%
1.54%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.38 038 0.75 0.57 0.76 0.55 0.75 0.93 0.89 0.84
Sunny
SR LEFT
5B THRU
SB RIGHT
WB LEFT
WB THRU
WB RIGHT
EB LEFT
ER THRU
' EB RIGHT
TOTALS
CARS TRUCKS
CARS TRUCKS
CARS TRUCKS
CARS TRUCKS
CARS TRUCKS
CARS
TRUCKS
CARS TRUCKS
CARS TRUCKS
CARS TRUCKS
CARS TRUCKS
230 PM
1 0
1'. 0
13 -0
9 '0
39 1
3
0
11 'I O
50 0
2 2
.129 3
245 PM
4 0
0 0
8 0
8 0
57 1
9
0
21 0
52. 0
3 3
162 4
3A0 PM
1 0
3 0
11 0
8 0
77 2
16
0
7 0
44 0
5 3
172 5
315 PM
2 0
0 0
13 _1
6 0
73 5
6
0
4 0
55"' 0
2 0
161 6
PEAKHR
8l 0
'I 0
451 1
311 0
2461 9
341 0
431 0
2011 0
121 8
6241 16
PEAK HR VOL
8
4
46
31
255
34
43
201
20
642
PEAK HR VPH
SR
58
W9
320
EB
264
% CARS
100.00%
100.00%
97.83%
100.00%
96.47%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
60.00%
97.20%
84 TRUCKS
0.00
0.00%
2.17%
0.00%
3.53%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
40.00%
2.80%
PEAK HR FACTOR I 0.50 I 0.33 I 0.82 I 0.86 I 0.81 I 0.53 I 0.51 I 0.91 I 0.63 I 0.91
JOB NUMBER 12208
Hall &Wedington
Fayetteville, Arkansas
5/1/2012
Partly Cloudy
NB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
NB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
WB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
WB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
TOTALS
CARS TRUCKS
7:00 AM
1 0
6 2
3 0
16 0
82 1
1 0
109 3
7:15 AM
1 0
10 0
3 0
50 5
175 2
0 0
239 7
7:30 AM
0 0
11 0
3 0
64 3
295 0
2 0
375 3
7:45 AM
2 0
20 0
5 0
52 3
288 3
4 0
371 6
8:00 AM
0 0
9 0
6 0
76 2
165 1
7 0
263 3
8:15 AM
0 0
5 0
7 0
63 1
156 0
5 1
236 2
8:30 AM
2 0
6 0
2 0
85 4
138 3
2 0
235 7
8:45 AM
1 0
1 0
6 0
105 4
174 4
1 0
288 4
PEAK HR
21 0
451 0
211 0
2551 9
9041 4
181 1
12451 14
PEAK HR VOL
2
45
21
264
908
19
1259
PEAK HR VPH
NB
47
WB
285
EB
927
% CARS
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
96.59%
99.56%
94.74%
98.89%
%TRUCKS
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
3.41%
0.44%
5.26%
1.11%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.25 0.56 0.75 I 0.85 0.77 0.68 0.83
Sunny
NB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
NB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
WB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
WB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
TOTALS
CARS TRUCKS
4:00
PM
0 0
8 0
10 0
194 3
145 1
6 0
363 4
4:15
PM
1 0
4 0
5 0
188 3
131 2
2 0
331 5
430
PM
0 0
2 0
8 0
215 0
136... 0
1 0
362 0
4:45PM
1 0
6 0
8 0
215 1
119 1
2 0
351 ' 2
500
PM
1 0
2 0
13 0
247 0
150 1
0 0
413 1
515
PM
1 0
9 0
4 .0
168 1
128 0
2 0
312 1
5:30
PM
0 0
9 0
4 0
230 1
157 1
1 0
401 2
5:45
PM
0 0
8 0
4 0
199 1
139 0
2 0
352 1
PEAK HR
31 0
191 0
331 0
845 2
3I 2
5I 0
14381 4
PEAK HR VOL
3
19
33
847
535
5
1442
PEAKHRVPH
NB
22
WB
880
EB
540
% CARS
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.76%
99.63%
100.00%
99.72%
%TRUCKS
0.00
0.00%
0.00%
0.24%
0.37%
0.00%
0.28%
IPEAK HR FACTOR 0.75 I 0.53 I 0.63 0.86 0.89 I 0.63 I 0.87
JOB NUMBER 12208
Razorback & Cleveland
Fayetteville, Arkansas
5/1/2012
Partly Cloudy
NB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
NB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
WB
CARS
LEFT
TRUCKS
WB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
TOTALS
CARS TRUCKS
7:00
AM
10 0
28 0
30
1
7 0
20
0
25 0
120 1
7:15
AM
10 0
28 1
31
1
7 0
20
0
25 0.121
2
730
AM
10 0
29 1
31
1
7 0
20
0
25 > 0
122 2
745
AM
10 - 0
29 1....
31
- 2
8 0
20
0
26 0
124 3
800
AM
10 - 0
29 1
31
2
8 1
20
1
26 0
124 5
815
AM
11 0
29 1
31
2
7 0
20
0
25 0
123 3
8:30
AM
10 0
28 1
31.
1
7 0
20
0
25 0
122 2
8:45
AM
10 0
28 1
30
1
7 0
20
0
25 0
120 2
PEAK HR
411 0
1161 4
1241 7
301 1
aol i
1021 0
4931 13
PEAK HR VOL
41
120
131
31
81
102
506
PEAK HRVPH
NB
161
WB
162
EB
183
% CARS
100.00%
96.67%
94.66%
96.77%
98.77%
100.00%
97.43%
%TRUCKS
0.00
3.33%
5.34%
3.23%
1.23%
0.00%
2.57%
IPEAK HR FACTOR 0.93 1.00 0.99 0.86 0.96 0.98 0.98
Sunny
NB LEFT.
CARS TRUCKS
NB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
WB
CARS
LEFT
TRUCKS
WB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
TOTALS
CARS TRUCKS
4:00 PM
38
0
39 1
52
1
23 1
8 0
10
2
170
5
4:15 PM
35
0
43 0
45
1
25 0
8 1
15
0
171
2
430 PM
30
0
44 0
63
1
18 0
17 0
21
0
193
1
445 PM
37
0
49 0
60
1
29 0
20 0
20
0
215
1
500 PM
55
0
36 0
65
1
30 0
6 0
30
0
222
1
515 PM
36
0
49 0
62
1
28 0
12 0
28
0
215
1
5:30 PM
30
0
43 1
24
0
25 0
12 0
29
0
163
1
5:45 PM
36
0
49 1
25
1
26 0
11 0
30
0
177
2
PEAK HR
1581 0
1781 0
2501 4
iosl 0
ssl 0
99 0
8451 4
PEAK HR VOL
158
178
254
105
55
99
849
PEAK HR VPH
NB
336
WB
359
EB
154
% CARS
100.00%
100.00%
98.43%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.53%
%TRUCKS
0.00
0.00%
1.57%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.47%
PEAK HR FACTOR I 0.72 0.91 0.96 0.88 I 0.69 0.83 0.95
JOB NUMBER 12208
Garland&Cleveland
Fayetteville, Arkansas
3/15/2012
Weather Unknown data provided by Peters &Assoc)
PEAK HR
2031 0
5301 0
2131 0
ISP 0
341 0
211 0
721 0
2551 0
321 0
'I 0
331 p
eel 0
1563 p
PEAK HR VOL
209
530
233
13
34
21
72
356
33
74
33
66
1563
PEAN HR VPH
SB
962
WB
68
NB
363
ER
173
% CARS
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
103.00%
10000%
100.03%
100.03%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
%TRUCKS
0.00
0.00%
O.C.%
000%
DA0%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
PEAK HR FACTOR 0.76 0.89 0.15 0.65 0.50 0.88 0.90 0.9] 0.80 0.64 0.55 0.83 0.81
Weather Unknown (data provided by Peters & Assoc)
SB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
SBTHRU
CARS TRUCKS
SB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
WB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
WBTHRU
CARS TRUCKS
WE RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
NB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
NR THOU
CABS TRUCKS
NB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
EB LEFT
CARS TRUCKS
EB THRU
CARS TRUCKS
EB RIGHT
CARS TRUCKS
TOTALS
CARS TRUCKS
4:00PM
27 0
W 0
31 0
11 0
14 0
27 0
16 0
106 0
14 0
42 0
14 0
20 0
412 0
4:15PM
30 0
107 0
29 0
8 0
16 0
34 0
20 0
116 0
11 0
38 0
1] 0
12 0
438 0
4:3DPM
33 0
98 0
31 0
10 0
25 0
33 0
30 0
124 0
6 `. 0
52 0
12 D
19 0
472 0
0:45PM
28 0
128 0
40 0
11 0
29 0
23 0
27 0
99 0
S 0
65 0
10 0
25 0
490 0
5:ODPM
42 0
137 0
31 0
7 0
36 0
34 0
27 0
..119 0
8 0
62 0
15 0
31 0
549 0
5.15 PM
23 0
133 0
42 0
' 14 0
40 0
21 0
26 0
SD 0
3 0
62 0
20 0
33 0
534 0
5:3DPM
18 0
136 0
44 0
10 0
22 0
1] 0
21 0
81 0
6 0
36 0
16 D
27 0
434 0
5FSPM
26 0
147 0
50 0
8 0
43 0
14 0
26 0
]5 0
9 0
38 0
3] D
23 0
464 0
PEAK HR
1211 0
4901 0
ij 0
'l 0
1301 0
1111 0
1101 0
4591 0
22 0
2411 0
S71 0
1081 0
20451 0
PEAK HR VOL
125
496
144
42
130
111
110
459
22
241
5]
108
2045
PEAK HR VPH
50
]65
WB
283
NB
591
EB
400
%CARS
100.00%
130.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
10000%
100.006
100.00%
100.00%
1300%
100.00%
10000%
%TRUCKS
0.00
00036
000%
000%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
000%
000%
0.00%
0.00%
PEAKERR FACTOR I 0.74 I 0.91 0.86 I 0]S I 0.81 I Obi I 0,92 I 0.93 I 0.69 I 0.93 I 0.71 I 0.82 I 0.93
TRAVEL BY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN VIRGINIA
IS THIS TRAVEL DIFFERENT FROM TRAVEL BY THE GENERAL
POPULATION?
Travel by University Students in Virginia
Is This Travel Different from Travel by the General Population?
Asad Khattak, Xin Wang, Sanghoon Son, and Paul Agnello
To improve regional travel demand models, transportation engineers and
planners want to represent subpopulations appropriately. A key segment
of the population is university students, and their behavior is neither well
understood nor well represented in travel demand models. Furthermore,
universities provide a unique context for behavioral research because
they are livable, are friendly to alternative travel modes, have a higher
density than other contexts, and offer mixed travel modes. This study
collected and analyzed data on the travel behavior of university students.
With the use of an Internet -based survey instrument, the study collected
data on travel behavior, sociodemographics, and context variables at
four major universities in Virginia. This paper provides information
about the design and implementation of the survey, the instrument struc-
ture, and a descriptive analysis of students' personal and travel charac-
teristics. The results indicated that the sociodemographics and travel
behavior of university students were different from those of the general
population. Moreover, differences in travel behavior were found between
students living on campus and students living off campus and between
students attending urban campuses and those attending suburban cam-
puses. The insights gained from this study serve as a basis for further
such surveys and help provide an understanding of travel behavior in
and around university campuses.
Analysis and understanding of travel behavior lie at the core of
travel demand modeling and forecasting. Whereas the travel behav-
ior of the general population is typically measured through behavioral
surveys, certain subgroups can be underrepresented. Specifically, cur-
rent national survey efforts, such as the 2009 National Household
Travel Survey (NHTS), significantly underrepresent college -age
students for a host of reasons; for example, they may live in dormi-
tories and have mobile phones instead of landline phones [surveys
show that the proportion of such individuals at Old Dominion Uni-
versity (ODU) and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univer-
sity (VT) in Virginia is nearly 60%]. Telephone interview surveys
that use random -digit dialing of telephone exchanges associated
with landlines in target geographic areas also often miss university
student populations. Mobile phone numbers are increasingly not
associated with the geographic area of the students' residence, mak-
ing it difficult to include them in samples. Students living in dormi-
A. Khattak, X. Wang, and S. Son, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing, Old Dominion University, 135 Kaufman Hall, Norfolk, VA 23529. P. Agnello,
Transportation and Mobility Planning Division, Virginia Department of Trans-
portation, 1401 East Broad Street, Richmond. VA 23219-2000. Corresponding
author: A. Khattak, ekhattak@odu.edu.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2255, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2011. pp. 137-145.
DCI: 10.3141/2255-15
tories and other university housing considered group quarters do not
fit nicely within the household categories used in surveys and travel
demand models. Moreover, few documented surveys of university
students' travel behavior exist. Thus, the travel behavior of univer-
sity students is not well understood or properly represented, yet uni-
versity students can constitute a significant portion of a region's
population.
Another important reason to survey university students is that uni-
versities represent environments that are more livable, are friendly to
alternative travel modes, have a higher density than other environ-
ments, and offer mixed travel modes. As such, exploration of the
travel behavior of students can be instructive and reveal valuable
information about associations with the built environment and the
extent of differences in travel (e.g., trip generation and mode choices)
compared with the general population. To this end, the Virginia
Department of Transportation (DOT) conducted Internet -based
surveys of university students.
Supplemental NHTS data were collected at the main campuses of
four universities in Virginia: VT, the University of Virginia (UVA),
Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), and ODU. The study
was conducted to obtain a better understanding of the travel behav-
ior ofcollege-age students, a significant component of travel in many
areas. These universities are fairly representative of the major uni-
versities in Virginia. UVA and VT are representative of universities
located in smaller college towns, and ODU and VCU are representa-
tive of universities located in urban areas. The survey instrument was
designed to resemble the NHTS, with the telephone -based NHTS
successfully being transferred to an Internet -based survey. Statistical
analyses of the data were conducted and revealed important aspects
of students' travel behavior in urban and suburban contexts.
The objectives of this paper are to document the survey efforts at
Virginia universities and to explore the travel behavior ofuniversity
students by comparison with the travel behavior of the general pop-
ulation. On the basis of the results of statistical analysis of the socio-
economic, demographic, and travel characteristics of university
students, the fundamental research question to be answered is whether
the travel behavior ofuniversity students is different from that of the
general population, and, if so, to what extent is it different? To this
end, the trip generation (trip rates and purposes), modal choices,
and departure time decisions of university students were compre-
hensively analyzed and compared with statistics for the general
population of Virginia.
RELEVANT LITERATURE
Student travel is rarely investigated in national surveys, including
NHTS, and only a few documented surveys focusing on the travel
behavior of university students exist in the reviewed literature.
138
National Household Travel Survey
To understand traveler behavior, NHTS was developed on the basis
of the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, conducted in
1969, 1977, 1983, 1990, and 1995, and the American Travel Survey,
conducted in 1977 and 1995 (1). The U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion conducted the latest NHTS in 2008 and 2009. The main purpose
of NHTS is to provide information for the analysis of policy issues,
setting of funding priorities, monitoring oftrends in travel behavior,
and calibration of travel demand models (2). The survey collects
information on the demographic characteristics of households and
individuals, vehicles owned, daily and longer -distance travel for all
purposes by all modes (in detail), telecommuting, Internet use, and
perceptions of the transportation system (2, 3). NHTS 2001 shows
that, on average, each household had 1.8 drivers and owned 1.9 per-
sonal vehicles, whereas 8% of households in the nation did not have
a vehicle available.
Trips produced by household members are a key part of travel
demand models. U.S. residents made an average of four trips per day
in 2001. A comparative analysis ofNHTS 2001 and NHTS 2009 data
shows that the overall trip rate was lower in 2009 than in 2001 (4),
which can be attributed to factors that include an economic recession,
higher unemployment levels, and higher gasoline prices. NHTS 2001
shows that 87% of daily trips were taken by personal vehicle (38%
were trips in a personal vehicle with a single occupant, whereas 49%
were trips in a personal vehicle with others), followed by walking
(8.6%), and public transit (1.5%) (5).
Nonresponse in Student Surveys
Nonresponse has been identified to be a serious concern in all house-
hold surveys (3, 6). The literature provides further information about
general participation in surveys by university students (7). For
instance, students at a selected liberal arts college were given four
different surveys throughout an academic year (7). Female students
and students with high grade point averages were found to be more
likely to take part in surveys, whereas students receiving financial aid
were less likely to do so. Furthermore, socially engaged university
students were more likely than their less engaged peers to take part
in surveys. Students with investigative personalities were more likely
than students with enterprising personalities to respond to the survey.
In another study, institutions participating in the National Survey of
Student Engagement drew a random sample of students that included
306,962 students from 437 schools (8). Whether the survey was
administered via the web or paper affected the response rate: in the
Internet survey, females were more likely to respond and the response
rates for urban schools were 10% lower than those for rural schools;
and in the paper survey, private colleges had a higher response rate
than public colleges. Universities that were urban and that had a
high density and campuses with large part-time student populations
were advised to administer surveys via paper, partly because of the
lower response rates.
University Travel Behavior Survey
Only a few surveys of the travel behavior of university students
could be found in the peer -reviewed literature (9-13). Rodriguez
and Jon have used data from a University ofNorth Carolina —Chapel
Hill student and staff commuter survey to illustrate relationships
Transportation Research Record 2255
between mode choice and spatial characteristics while accounting
for time and costs (9). FTA sponsored research on transit systems
in colleges and provided a good picture of transit use practices at
selected major universities (10). Gallarza and Saura implemented a
survey of Spanish university students to study their travel preferences
during vacation breaks from a tourism perspective (1/). R2In_mozaman
et al. used the trip diary method to investigate 2 days of out -of -home
travel and activities by college students (12). They found that stu-
dents visited 3.59 unique locations and that female students visited
more unique locations than male students. However, these studies
do not explicitly provide detailed information about daily trip rates,
destinations, modes, and departure times.
A 2001 North Carolina state university student activity —travel
survey reported 843 students in its sample (13). Students were asked
to complete a travel diary for I school day. The results showed that
undergraduate students and on -campus residents were engaged in
more activities than graduate students and students living off cam-
pus. Graduate students made five trips per day, whereas undergrad-
uate student made more than six trips per day. The student trip rates
were significantly higher than the regional average of 4.06 trips
per day recorded in the Triangle Regional Model household travel
survey (North Carolina Department of Transportation, 1999). For
mode split, about 60% of on -campus trips were made by walking
and 30% were made by automobile. Nearly 45% of the trips were
related to university activities, including school or class, study or
research, and work or volunteer activities. Besides these activi-
ties, trips for meals and social and recreational activities had high
frequencies.
The gaps apparent in the literature include a scarcity of behavioral
surveys of university students and limited knowledge about the travel
behavior of university students. By documenting the results of this
student survey, similar surveys in other regions can benefit from the
insights that have been obtained.
DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY
AND BEHAVIORAL DATA
Survey Data
NHTS data were collected from four universities in Virginia, includ-
ing two universities in urban areas and two universities in suburban
areas. The survey was conducted by major survey research centers at
each of the four universities. After the data were checked for errors,
cleaned, and cleared, each university had more than 600 students in
the sample. Note that the final sample sizes are somewhat smaller
than the total number of students who responded, because a portion
of the students did not report all their trips and the data for those stu-
dents were removed from the sample. The sociodemographics of the
samples were compared with those of the university student popula-
tion and were found to be quite representative. Specifically, values
of demographic variables for the sample were generally within 5%
to 10% of those of the variables for the university student population,
with a moderate overrepresentation of female students (especially in
the VCU and VT samples) and graduate students (especially in the
VCU and VT samples). Consideration was given to correction of the
data for overrepresentation by the use of sample weights. However,
the use of sample weights creates a host of other issues, which could
not be dealt with within the scope ofthe current study. Therefore, the
samples were used directly in this study (without addition of sample
weights). Note that the latest version ofthe 2009 NHTS Virginia add-
Khattak, Wang, Son, and Agnello
on was used to compare the travel behavior of the general population
with that of university students.
Survey Instructions
Undergraduate and graduate students were selected as the target
population of the survey. For each university, about 5,000 students
were randomly selected through a series of contact methods. About
1,000 students from each university responded, representing an over-
all response rate of roughly 20%. The surveys gathered information
on the sociodemographics and travel characteristics of the students.
Given the length of the survey and the need to keep track of travel
details, students who completed the survey were entered into random
drawings for incentives.
To be consistent with the NHTS instrument, the survey had eight
sections that included questions on personal characteristics, vehicle
ownership, university commute, attitude toward walking and bicy-
cling, work and parking information, transit use, traveler informa-
tion, and Internet use as well as a trip diary. However, the traditional
NHTS cannot efficiently capture the trip movements of university
students, as significant segments of the NHTS questionnaire are cen-
tered on trips to and from work and trips to and from schools for
children in from kindergarten to Grade 12, but such trips did not fit
the situation for college students (14). NHTS also uses the house-
hold as the basic unit sampled, and so the basic unit sampled needed
to be modified for university students.
Therefore, the student survey was redesigned and numerous
changes and adjustments were made to ensure that the survey was
applicable to individuals in a university setting (14). An important
change was the trip diary, which was transformed into an online diary
that visually appeared similar to a standard paper diary. Changes to
questions were also made, including questions over issues related
to trip purposes, common travel modes, and the unit of analysis
(individual instead of household). The survey was transferred from
a telephone interview format to a format for use as an online tool.
An Intemet-based survey methodology is a more feasible, appro-
priate, and efficient means of collecting travel information from
university students.
139
RESULTS
Individual Characteristics of Students
The personal characteristics for the sample and overall student
populations of the four universities are shown in Table 1.
Statistics show that most students live offcampus, live with family
or roommates, are younger and unmarried, have relatively lower
incomes, have a driver's license, and have a vehicle available. Fur-
thermore, UVA and VT have more younger and unmarried students,
whereas ODU and VCU have more part-time students and students
with higher incomes, as expected. Notably, the percentage of under-
graduate students in the sample is relatively lower than the percent-
age ofundergraduates in the actual populations of all four universities,
which may be due to the relatively lower response rate of undergrad-
uate students. Meanwhile, the percentage of female respondents in the
sample is relatively higher than the actual percentage in the student
populations of three universities, which may indicate that female stu-
dents are more likely to respond to the surveys, consistent with the
findings ofprevious studies (7, 8). Consideration is being given to use
of a correction for overrepresentation by using sample weights, but
sample weights were not used in the present study.
Among the four universities, UVA has a relatively lower percent-
age of students who work for profit, whereas more than one-half of
the students at the other three universities work for profit.
More than one-half of the responding students live off campus.
Most of the students do not live alone. The proportions of students liv-
ing alone are only 6% for ODU and less than 20% for the other three
universities. Owing to their urban locations, ODU and VCU have rel-
atively higher percentages of students living with family members.
As expected, university students in urban areas are more likely to
have ajob and live with family members, which is similar to the sit-
uation for more traditional households in the general population,
whereas most students in suburban campuses live with roommates,
which is different from the situation for traditional households in the
general population.
About 95% of university students report that they have a driver's
license. The automobile ownership or access rate is also relatively
high. In ODU and VCU, more than 90% of students who have a
TABLE 1 Comparison of Sociodemographic Characteristics of University Students
Characteristic
ODU
VCU
UVA
VT
Sample size (N)
708
652
780
644
Living off campus (%)
79 (79)
88 (—)
66 (57)
74 (79)
Living alone (%)
6
16
15
14
Living with roommate (%)
41
41
68
71
Living with family member (%)
53
43
17
15
Undergraduate (%)
75 (82)
52 (79)
58 (69)
59 (83)
Mean age (year)
25.3 (26.3)
25.9 (25.4)
23 (—)
23.5 (—)
Male (%)
38 (38)
32 (40)
37 (47)
46 (57)
Married (%)
24(—)
22(—)
14(—)
I3(—)
Full-time student (%)
80.3 (76.8)
82.7 (—)
95.5 (—)
95.5 (96.1)
Works for profit (%)
58 (—)
59 (—)
35 (—)
50 (—)
Has driver's license (%)
94 (—)
95 (—)
93 (—)
95 (—)
Average number of vehicles (%)
2.03 (—)
1.75 (—)
1.33 (—)
1.65 (—)
Income (% of students making <$10,000/year)
53 (—)
55 (—)
66 (—)
61 (—)
NOTE: Numbers in parentheses represent value for actual student population; (—) = not available
14O Transportation Research Record 2255
TABLE 2 Personal Characteristics by University Student Category
Variable
Living on Campus
ODU VCU
UVA
VT
Living off Campus
ODU VCU
UVA
VT
Age(years)
19.7
19.5
19.6
19.1
26.8
26.8
24.9
25.0
Male(%)
37
32
35
51
38
32
39
45
Undergraduate (%)
98
94
92
96
69
46
41
46
Married (%)
0
1
5
0
31
25
18
17
Full-time student (%)
98
100
98
99
76
80
94
94
Works for profit(%)
27
30
15
17
67
63
46
62
Average number of vehicles
1.18
0.73
0.55
0.99
2.25
1.89
1.74
1.87
driver's license have a car available for use. The proportions for VT
and UVA are lower (84% for VT, 72% for UVA). This difference
might be associated with factors such as urban location, relatively
higher income levels, and worker status.
Students living on campus have different personal characteristics
from students living off campus (Table 2). Students living on cam-
pus tend to be younger and unmarried. Students living off campus
own more vehicles and are more likely to be working. No significant
difference between students living on campus and students living off
campus is found by gender. Almost all students living on campus are
full-time students. Few graduate students (less than 10%) live on
campus. Owing to substantial differences in personal characteristics
between students living on campus and students living off campus,
it is possible that their travel behaviors will also be different.
Student Travel Characteristics
The survey captures various aspects of daily travel on campus and
off campus during 24 h of the day.
Trip Rates
To capture the travel behavior of students fully, a trip was defined
as movement from one address to another, as long as it was more
than 300 ft. Therefore, trips between on -campus buildings were
counted as separate trips, as some of these can be relatively long
trips; for example, students may need to take a shuttle between
campus buildings, given that the campuses of the four universities
TABLE 3 Comparison of Personal Trip Rates of Students
surveyed are relatively large. These definitions are consistent with
those for NHTS, when it is considered that in NHTS and regional
travel behavior surveys, walking trips do not necessarily take
place on publicly maintained roadways but are captured in the
measurement.
Table 3 shows that the average daily trip frequency is between 4.4
and 4.9, which is higherthan that for the general population. Analy-
sis of the 2009 NHTS Virginia add-on shows that the daily average
number of trips is 3.69 per person. A t -test shows that the university
students make a significantly higher (more than 20%) number of trips
than the general population. When mode splits are considered, the
average number of trips that students make by auto is lower than that
for the general population, even for students from urban campuses.
Notably, students make more walking and bicycling trips. Because
of regional differences, transit trips for different universities could
not be compared directly with those for the general population from
the Virginia NHTS.
Fewer trips are taken on weekends than on weekdays. More specif-
ically, the student trip rate on weekdays is significantly higher than
that for the general population of Virginia, but the difference is not
large on weekends. The trip rates of the students in this study are also
relatively lower than those reported in a previous study (13), which was
done in 2001. Some level of trip underreporting may be occurring in
these student surveys, partly because of the survey burden.
Figure 1 shows the average number of trips by student group and
residential status. Among all four universities, students living on
campus make more trips than students living off campus students,
and undergraduate students make more trips than graduate students.
This finding is consistent with the findings of other studies of uni-
versity students (13) and indicates that students living on campus
University
N
Mean
Min.
Max.
SD
Auto Trips
Walking or
Bicycling
Transit Trips
Weekday
Average
Weekend
Average
ODU
708
4.59
0
15
2.85
2.75
1.78
0.03
5.00
3.46
VCU
652
4.85
0
15
2.72
2.71
1.93
0.19
5.09
3.84
UVA
780
4.87
0
15
3.00
1.45
3.17
0.21
5.16
3.49
VT
644
4.41
0
14
2.67
1.83
2.30
0.26
4.74
3.38
NHTS Virginia
31,592
3.69
0
24
3.10
0.37
0.14
3.75
3.54
add-on
NOTE: Appropriate weights were applied when statistics for the NHTS Virginia add-on data were calculated. Min. = minimum; max. = maximum; SD = standard
deviation.
Khattak, Wang, Son, and Agnello
8.00
7.00 :.........
.._-.....
..__.........
..............._.
6.00:
6.00.
----
--
m
-. .-_....... ... ....._
w 5.00
=4.00 ..
__-...--.-.
....__-..._
_
Z3.001._..
__...-........._....
iII1ti-it
-^
00 1-.-..
_...-.._......-
..._�
___.
Under- graduate combine
Under-
graduate
combine
graduate
graduate
I m on campus
515 967 5.25
12 on campus'
636
380
6.20
zoitcampusi.
449 4.24 4.42
® off campus)
5.03
4.38
4.66
combine
4.66 4.37 4.59
Fuconibino
5.33
4.37
4.85
(a)
(b)
8.00.-.__..__-_._._-_..-_-___-________-_---__�
8.00
zoo
I
7.00--------
---------------------------1
6.00
--......
_..-_......_......_ .---. ...-.-.{
» 500---
__-.
-_----_..._._-..
.. ......._ .....1
°' 4.00_.
............_..-
..._-_....
HItIL-ii
...............�
i 3.00.
._.-_
.-
.-......-. .......... ......�
2.00_
...-.-..
.
1.00
0.00
Under-
graduate combine
Under
graduate
combine
graduate {
graduate
® on campus
5.98 3.90 5.82
' ® on campus
489
300
4.83
w off campus
4.79 411 4.38
® off campus
4 32
4 27
4 28
ucombine
5.43 4.10 4.87
(combine
4.55
4.24
4.41
(c)
(d)
FIGURE 1 Trip
rates by living status (on or off campus) and student status (graduate or undergraduate):
(a) 0DU,
(b) VCU, (c) UVA, and (dl VT (sample size for graduate students at 0DU living
on campus was too small and
not
representative for comparison with other groups; Ntrips
= numberof trips).
tend to be more active and participate in more activities, owing to
their ages and lifestyles. Campuses also typically provide students
with greater accessibility to various types of activities that include
education, recreation, dining, and shopping; and therefore, students
living on campus tend to make more trips than students living off
campus. The overall reported trip rates seem to be lower than expec-
tations and the rates in the literature (1), perhaps because of a host
of factors that include the relatively high survey burden; transfer of
the NHTS method conducted over the telephone to the one-shot sur-
vey conducted online, as a result ofwhich the interviewers could not
confirm the respondents' answers; and students being a young and
busy segment of the population.
Travel Mode Characteristics
Figure 2 shows the mode split for students. Students use alternative
modes much more frequently than the general population. Although
similar percentages of students at the four universities have a
driver's license, students at the two urban campuses (ODU and
VCU) have higher numbers of drive -alone trips: more than 40% of
trips in these two urban campuses were in a vehicle with a single
occupant (drive alone). The percentages for shared rides are similar
141
among all universities (between 11% and 16%). Walking accounts
for a large proportion of the cases of modal split. The percentage of
students who walk is the highest at UVA, where more than one-half
of the trips are by walking; this can be for a host of reasons that
include student parking restrictions, campus walkability, and the
accessibility and proximity of campus buildings. UVA, VT, and
VCU have higher percentages of bus trips. More school shuttles
or buses and regional transit services are available at those univer-
sities. Mode shares vary among the four universities, which maybe
the result of several factors that include personal preference, the
working situations of the students, the campus built environment,
cost and time, availability and accessibility of public transit, and
climate.
University students have different mode choices than the general
population of Virginia. Specifically, on the basis of the Virginia
NHTS add-on survey, a majority of daily trips occurred in personal
vehicles: 41% of all trips were made by driving alone. This percent-
age is similar at the two urban universities. However, it is much lower
at the two suburban universities. The percentage of the general pop-
ulation who share rides (43%) is substantially higher than that for
university students. The shares of other modes for the general popu-
lation are quite low: 4% for public transit, 10% for walking, and less
than 1% for bicycling.
142
60.00
50.00
40.00
e
m 30.00
u
a
0
20.00
10.00
Transportation Research Record 2255
0.00-
drive alone
share ride
walk
bus
bicycle
other/missing
N ODU
46.65
13.25
36.10
0.71
2.61
0.68
lY VCU
40.40
15.46
33.73
3.95
6.01
0.44
UVA
18.47
11.21
54.16
10.24
4.24
1.08
® VT
2763
13.76
40.76
11.40
5.81
0.63
A VA Add-on V2
40.87
43.07
10.10
3.92
0.73
1.31
FIGURE 2 Mode split of university students end Virginia's general population (V2 = Version 2; appropriate weights were
applied when statistics for Virginia NHTS add-on data were calculated).
Table 4 shows the differences between students living on campus
and those living off campus by mode choice. Students living off cam-
pus are more likely to drive, as expected. The proportion of drive -
alone trips is less than 10% for students living on campus, whereas
it ranges from 28% to 58% for students living off campus.
Students living on campus make more walking trips. The percent-
ages of bus and bicycle trips for students living on campus and for
students living off campus differ among the universities. Walking
accounts for a large portion of trip modes even for students living off
campus, especially for UVA students living off campus. An explo-
ration of whether a relationship exists between higher numbers of
walking trips and the built environment would be interesting.
ODU and VT students living off campus make a higher percent-
age of transit trips than students living on campus, whereas the situ-
ation is the opposite for VCU and UVA, where students living on
campus make a higher percentage of transit trips. This is partly due
to variations in the availability and quality of transit service. For
bicycle trips, ODU and UVA students living on campus make a
TABLE 4 Trip Modes by Residential Status of Students
higher percentage of bicycle trips than students living off campus,
whereas VCU and VT students living on campus make a lower per-
centage of bicycle trips than students living off campus. The differ-
ences in mode choices between students living on campus and students
living off campus are more pronounced for urban campuses.
Travel Purposes
Figure 3 presents student travel classified by different purposes. A
large portion of daily trips are taken between home and university.
These account for 20% to 30% of all trips. The proportion of com-
mute trips between the home and the workplace ranges from 3% to
9%. In the 2009 NHTS Virginia add-on sample, the commute trips
between home and workplace accounted for about 12% of all trips.
University students have smaller percentages of home -based shop-
ping trips and home -based social or recreational trips than the gen-
eral population. The number is about 10% for students, whereas it
Variable
Living on Campus
ODU (%) VCU (%)
UVA (%)
VT (%)
Living off Campus
ODU (%) VCU (%)
UVA (%)
VT (%)
Drive alone
9.9
9.0
3.9
4.6
58.2
46.2
28.6
36.7
Share ride
10.8
10.2
6.6
7.7
13.9
16.4
14.4
16.2
Bus
0.5
6.3
5.3
4.6
0.8
3.5
3.5
6.3
Bicycle
5.9
3.1
13.2
5.5
1.5
6.6
8.1
13.8
Walk
72.5
70.7
70.5
77.1
25.0
26.9
44.0
26.6
Other or missing
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.4
0.3
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Khattak, Wang, Son, and Agnello
40.00
30.00
0
rn
m
m 20.00
J
10.00
0.00
__
HBU
HBW
HBSHOP
HBSOCREC
HBO
NHB
■ODU
21.52
9.10
5.09
5.06
19.79
39.44
•VCU
21.52
8.01
6.96
5.28
19.11 1
39.11
UVA
28.75
3.26
4.49
7.43
20.34
36.02
■ V7
29.95 !,
5.52
3.43
6.19
88.81
36.10
VA Add on V2
.; -...
11.50
............
20.66,.,,.,,...,
......_..
14.18
_..._._..__-
........................
22.18
,,. 31.03..,
(a)
35.00 r------'----------------------------------------------------.-.-...
..........................................._...___._.-_________
25.00 !
....... .._
......
......_....
m 20.00
d
d 15.00--
-
a
10.00
--_.--.---..___-..._...._.__-...._.__.____..._._...._...
_._..-__.................
-
5.00 L_
I
..--. ..
.._.
__ - _.......
.......
.... __ .........____.
0.00
Home
Academic:
Work
Shopping
Social/Rec-
Meals
Personal
Other
Errands
reational (
Business
.. __...._..
1BODU I 29.80
..... __.
t 2531
_._-..-:.
8.64
.....-
7.206:37
.. __
7.90
...........
216
..........................
12.61
NVCU '. 29.97
24.50
8.28
: 7.87
6.73
7.56
2.24
12.84
I BU__
VA 31.74
—_
30.87
347
...
461
i.
....._
82.. I 6 j
{{
10 97
_-
0 68
9.39
...-..
......
MW 30.76
a
1 30.73
5 88
4.89
7.39 1
10.49
1.23 1
8.62
(b)
FIGURE 3 Student trip purpose: (a) proportion of student trips by type and (bl proportion of student trips by
purpose.
is 21% for the sample of the Virginia population. About one-third
of the trips are non -home based, and this proportion is similar for
both university students and the general population. Detailed statis-
tics for trips by trip purpose show that the purpose making up the
largest portion (about 30%) of trips is to go home, which is similar
for all four universities. Furthermore, UVA and VT have higher per-
centages (about 30%) of trips for academic purposes and meals
(about 10%). ODU and VCU have higher levels of trips to work
(about 8%) and social and personal trips, including trips for shopping,
recreation, and personal business.
Table 5 shows the differences between students living on campus
and students living offcampus by trip purpose. Students living on cam-
pus have higher percentages ofhome-based university trips and home -
based other trips, whereas students living off campus show higher
143
percentages of home -based work trips and home -based shopping trips.
Finally, trip rates by purpose can be obtained by using appropriate trip
rates multiplied by the appropriate trip purpose percentages.
Temporal Distribution of Trips
Daily trips are spread unevenly by time of day (Figure 4). For the
general population, the Virginia add-on survey indicates that no
strong peaks exist during the morning and evening commute peri-
ods. Trips are quite evenly distributed (about 8%) between noon and
6:00 p.m. However, student trips show a clear peak during noon
time for all four universities, and more trips are taken after 6:00 p.m.
This reflects the different lifestyles of university students; that is,
144
TABLE 5 Trip Purpose by Residential Status of Students
Living on Campus
Living off Campus
Transportation Research Record 2255
Trip Purpose ODU (%) VCU (%) UVA (%) VT (%) ODU (%) VCU (%) UVA (%) VT (%)
HBU
30.8
25.5
29.1
34.2
18.3
20.7
28.2
28.1
HBW
2.6
1.8
.7
1.9
11.1
9.1
4.8
6.9
HBO
23.3
23.4
22.3
25.9
18.2
16.9
17.0
15.7
NHB
32.1
42.8
38.3
28.9
41.2
38.4
33.8
38.7
HBSHOP
4.0
1.2
1.9
2.6
5.4
8.0
5.6
3.7
HBSOCREC
5.7
5.1
6.4
5.6
4.8
5.3
8.1
6.4
Other or missing
1.4
.2
1.2
.9
1.1
1.5
2.5
.5
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Nave: HBU = home -based university; HBW = home -based work; HBO = home -based other; NHB = non -home based; HBSHOP — home -based
shopping; HBSOCREC = home -based social and recreational.
they participate in more activities during midday and evening (e.g.,
visit bars) than the sample of the general population.
Limitations
The studyis limited by the use of cross-sectional data from univer-
sities in a single state. Although the universities selected are some-
what representative of large state institutions in states in the United
States and cover both urban and suburban contexts, Virginia is
unique in some ways, especially its history of development, includ-
ing a colonial past. However, a varied geography, a diversified econ-
omy, an extensive transportation system, and the existence of several
state -supported universities make Virginia relatively representative
of states of moderate size.
The authors recognize that such surveys can have nonresponse
and noncoverage biases and trip underreporting, when the survey
burden is considered (on average, it took 40 min to complete the sur-
vey). Inherent uncertainty in the sample also exists, and the authors
recognize this. Although the data analyzed in the paper cannot fully
explore and reveal all issues related to student travel and the forces
at work, the findings are insightful for the characterization of stu-
dent travel. For example, the data give a sense of how mode choices
can vary in more livable university environments (e.g., nearly 55%
of student trips at UVA were by walking), even in cities with cultures
of travel oriented toward the private automobile.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This study contributes by comprehensively exploring the travel
behavior of university students and providing a detailed quantitative
analysis of their travel patterns, which to date have been weakly
10.00
° 8.00
c 6.00
4.00
oa. 2.00
0.00
covered in the research literature. Owing to the physical environ-
ment of universities, which typically have higher densities than
other environments, offer mixed travel modes, and are friendly to
alternative travel modes, college students may act differently when
they travel, and this study seeks to understand the differences between
students and the general population. An Internet survey was used to
collect behavioral data for students at four universities in Virginia,
including two urban and two suburban campuses. The survey results
suggest that an Internet -based survey methodology is a feasible,
appropriate, and efficient means of collecting travel information
from university students.
The travel behavior and sociodemographics of university students
are different from those of the general population. As a younger and
busier population group with relatively low incomes, university stu-
dents make more daily trips, especially on weekdays, whereas their
trip rate on weekends is only slightly higher than that of the general
population. For trip modes, although driving is still the dominant
transportation mode on two urban campuses, students make sub-
stantially more nonmotorized trips than a sample of the general pop-
ulation in Virginia. The main reasons for travel by students are
going to university or work, home, academic activities, meals, shop-
ping, and social or recreational activities. Students participate in
fewer shopping and social or recreational activities than a sample of
the general population. The temporal distribution of trips by stu-
dents is also different from that of trips by the general population.
Although no substantial peak times for trips were observed, the
highest percentage of student trips was at noon. Students also made
more trips in the evening than the general population. Overall, stu-
dents travel more frequently, heavily use alternative modes, under-
take more trips for university or work purposes, and predominantly
travel during off-peak periods.
VA add-on
*. " a• ODU
.A-- VCU
—x- UVA
.......1.6.. -. 22 - _.:... VT
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Hours of day
FIGURE 4 Temporal distribution of student daily trips.
Khattak, Wang, Son, and Agnello
Students living on campus and students living off campus show
distinct differences according to their personal characteristics and
travel behavior. Students living on campus are often younger, un-
married, and full-time, and most of them are undergraduate students,
as expected. Compared with students living offcampus, students liv-
ing on campus have a higher daily trip rate, different mode choices,
and different trip purposes. They tend to drive less and walk more.
Students living on campus also make more home -based university
trips and home -based other trips than students living off campus, but
they make fewer home -based shopping trips.
The study develops a deeper understanding of variations across
urban and suburban campuses. It has found notable differences in per-
sonal characteristics and travel behaviors across the four universities.
These differences may be due to the regional contexts (urban or sub-
urban) as well as differences in the social and built environments of
the universities. Students from ODU and VCU have more in common
when their travel behavior is compared with that of students from VT
and UVA, although their trip rates are similar; specifically, students
from ODU and VCU drive more, walk less, and make more trips for
purposes other than academic activities. Because they are on urban
campuses, students have a fairly complex travel environment and
have more feasible alternatives for participation in activities.
As mentioned previously, university students are a special sub-
group and have travel behavior different from that of the general pop-
ulation. However, they are underrepresented in NHTS and other
regional surveys, and they have received little attention in the litera-
ture. This study has attempted to fill the gap. Universities are large
trip generators. Although a majority of student trips occur on cam-
pus and students are more likely to use alternative travel modes, uni-
versity students affect regional traffic because of their diverse travel
patterns. More attention needs to be given to trips by university stu-
dents, and work needs to be done to capture the impacts of these trips
and properly incorporate trips by university students into regional
travel demand models. Promising approaches include microsimula-
tion of the student population by the use of different trip rates and
purposes for students in travel demand models, temporal models of
trips by students, and segmentation of mode choice models by stu-
dents and nonstudents. These data also have ancillary uses. Forexam-
ple, they may be used to (a) explore the use of time and participation
in activities by students; (b) analyze spatially student travel in the
high -density university environment, which offers mixed travel
modes and is friendly to alternative travel modes; and (c) evaluate
the role of new travel information technologies in student travel.
Overall, the results of this study of student travel at four public
universities in Virginia provides a rich resource to help provide an
understanding of the travel behavior of university students and
design practical transportation strategies, for example, improve traf-
fic flow around campuses by providing more incentives to using
alternative modes. The behavioral data will be used as a basis to
develop university -based trip purposes for travel demand models
and to assist with other transportation planning efforts.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Ju-Yin Chen ably managed the project. The authors have benefited
greatly from discussions with the following individuals: Nelson
Newton and Jaesup Lee of the Virginia DOT, Jeremy Raw (formerly
145
of the Virginia DOT), Thomas Guterbock, Deborah Rexrode, and
Jim Ellis of UVA, Antoine Hobeika and Susan Willis -Walton of
VT, Jimmy Chen of VCU, Taney Vandecar-Burdin and Wendi
Wilson -John of ODU, and Ken Kaltenbach of the Corradino Group.
Special thanks are extended to the following for help with instru-
ment development, data collection, and survey data sharing: the
Transportation Research Institute and Social Science Research Cen-
ter at ODU, the Center for Survey Research at UVA, the Survey and
Evaluation Research Laboratory of VCA, and the Center for Survey
Research at VT.
REFERENCES
I. Committee to Review the Bureau of Transportation Statistics' Survey
Programs. Letter report to Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation. TRB, Washington, D.C., 2002. http://online
pubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/repons/nhts.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2010.
2. FHWA, U.S. Department ofTransportation. NHTS National Household
Travel Survey: Our Nation's Travel. http://nhts.ornl.gov/index.shtml.
Accessed July 20, 2010.
3. Hu, P. S., and T. R. Reuscher. Summary of Travel Trends, 2001 National
Household Travel Survey. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
2004.
4. Polzin, S. E. The Case for Moderate Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel:
A Critical Juncture in U.S. Travel Behavior Trends. U.S. Department of
Transportation, 2006.
5. NHTS: Highlights of the 2001 National Household Travel Survey.
Bureau ofTransportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation,
2003.
6. Cantor, D., G. Shapiro, L. Chen, G. Choudhry, and M. Freedman. Non -
response in the National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS).
Westat, Rockville, Md. http://onlinepubs.trb.orglonlinepubs/archive/
conferences/nhts/Shapiro.pdf. Accessed Jan. 20, 2010.
7. Porter, S. R., and M. Whitcomb. Non -Response in Student Surveys: The
Role ofDemographics, Engagement and Personality. Research in Higher
Education, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2005, pp. 127-152.
8. Porter, S. R., and P. D. Umbach. Student Survey Response Rates Across
Institutions: Why Do They Vary? Research in Higher Education, Vol.47,
No.2,2006, pp. 229-247.
9. Rodriguez, D., and J. Joo. The Relationship Between Non -Motorized
Mode Choice and the Local Physical Environment. Transportation
Research Part D, Vol. 9, 2004, pp. 151-173.
10. TCRP Synthesis 78: Transit Systems in College and University Com-
munities. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2008. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_
syn_78.pdf. Accessed July 20, 2010.
I1. Gallarza, M. G., and G. Saura. Value Dimensions, Perceived Value,
Satisfaction and Loyalty: An Investigation ofUniversity Students' Travel
Behavior. Tourism Management, Vol. 27, 2006, pp. 437-452.
12. Kamruzzaman, M., J. Hine, B. Gunay, and N. Blair, Using GIS to
Visualize and Evaluate Student Travel Behavior. Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2011, pp. 13-32.
13. Eom, J. K., J. R. Stone, and S. K. Ghosh. Daily Activity Patterns of
University Students. Journal of Urban Planning and Development,
Vol. 135, No. 4, 2009, pp. 141-149.
14. Guterbock, T., S. Vandecar-Burdin, S. White, P. Willis -Walton, J. Agnello,
D. Ellis, W. Rexrode, and J. Wilson. College Road Trip: Transforming
the NHTS into a Web -Based Travel Diary Survey of University Students
in Virginia. Presented at American Association for Public Opinion
Research Annual Meeting, Chicago, Ill, 2010.
The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data.
The Transportation Planning Applications Committee peer -reviewed this paper.
PUBLIC COMMENT
3/26/2012 Jesse Fulcher - Housinpro'ect at Hall and Cleveland Seite 1
From: Julia Kennefick <kennefick@mac.com>
To: <Jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 3/25/2012 3:28 PM
Subject: Housing project at Hall and Cleveland
Dear Mr. Fulcher,
I am a resident of Fayetteville. I live on Sunset Drive, just north of Cleveland. I understand that there is
currently
proposed a development of 5 stories with 446 parking spaces at Hall and Cleveland. While in principle I
see
no problem with developing that site for student housing as it is now used, I do have a problem with such
a large
development going in that spot. My main concern is that it just does not fit with the character of that
street or
surrounding neighborhoods, as it is mainly single family residences in the area. I can see perhaps a
development
of 2-3 stories, but 5 stories seems way out of scale.
I have three children, two of whom have completed their schooling at Leverett and one that will start
attending
there in a few years. They have all walked to and from school, crossing that intersection at Hall and
Cleveland.
That area is already pretty busy with traffic, with the University parking lots across the street plus the
school
traffic in the morning and afternoon. If you do allow a development there, I highly suggest you make sure
that there is ample pedestrian cross walk protection, perhaps even lights. I am all for infill and
development
of the area, but I encourage you to make sure our children remain safe as they travel through the area on
foot.
Thank you for your time,
Julia Kennefick
920 N Sunset Dr.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 439-0199
(3/26/2012) Jesse Fulcher Cleveland and Hall Streets Seite 1
From:
Linda Eichmann <leichmann@msn.com>
To:
<jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
CC:
<rhonda@adamsward4.com>, <ward4_pos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date:
3/25/2012 3:41 PM
Subject:
Cleveland and Hall Streets
Dear Mr. Fulcher,
My name is Linda Eichmann and my husband Raymond and I live at 629 N. Oliver, just a few blocks from
the proposed student housing development at the comer of Cleveland/Hall. I am familiar with the
proposed development because I walk past it several times a week in order to pick up a grandchild who
attends Leverett Elementary School. As you are aware, Leverett is located directly across the street from
the proposed development and people in our neighborhood with children or grandchildren at Leverett
walk past this site daily.
As I understand the proposed project, the development seeks to replace 4 single family houses (zoned
RSF-4) and a small apartment complex with a 5 -story, 220 unit building with a 5 -level parking deck large
enough to hold 446 parking spaces. The total size of the proposed site is 2.7 acres.
We oppose this project and request that the planning staff withhold its recommendation for approval
based on a number of reasons, including:
1) The sheer size and density of the project on a small footprint of land - a 5 story, 220 unit student
housing complex located on 2.7 acres,
2) The location of the project directly across from Leverett Elementary School,
3) The location of the project within the University Heights Neighborhood Association and the
inappropriate transition on Cleveland and Hall with a 220 unit student housing development and single
family residences,
4) The removal of 4 single family residences from our neighborhood and the radical change of zoning
density for these zoned houses from 4 units per acre to approximately 81 units per acre,
5) The increased traffic onto Cleveland and Hall Avenue,
6)The proposed entrance of the parking deck being directly across the street from the entrance to the
Leverett playground,
The size of the development, the relatively small size of the site, and the location of this proposal speak
for themselves, but I would like to emphasize that the project will effectivey remove current family housing
from Leverett Elementary and will increase an already conjested and dangerous traffic conditions on Hall
and Cleveland. Every year there are a number of families with children at Leverett who live the the
existing apartment complex. The proposed development resembles a student dorm and is not a place
where families will reside.
The development will also increase the traffic onto Cleveland and Hall. As a member of the UHNA, I
know that our neighborhood requested the city to perform a traffic study on Cleveland several years
ago.This study confirmed our complaints that this relatively small ane steep road had an excessive
number of vehicles travelling on it at excessive speeds. We were informed by the city that Cleveland was
cetainly a candidate for traffic calming. This project will increase the traffic along Cleveland, which is
already treacherous to cross- especially during the times that the University is in session. Furthermore,
Hall has Leverett Elementary at one end and a steep T -intersection with Wedington at the other end.
With children, families and students crossing Hall and Cleveland several times a day, this project will add
to an already dangerous situation.
Finally, as an active member of UHNA, please note that we have objections to another situation where
the single family residence character of our neighborhood is being chipped away by inappropriate uses
and developments. Removing single family zoned houses and family apartments for a very large, very
dense student housing complex (in realty, a dormitory) is an inappropriate use in our single family
(3/26)2012 Jesse Fulcher - Clevelarid and Hall Streets Seite 2
neighborhood
I thank you for your consideration of our objections. I ask that our email be placed in the record of this
PZD application so the members of the planning Commission and the City Council can be aware of our
objections.
Sincerely,
Linda and Raymond Eichmann
629 N. Oliver Avenue
(3/26/2012 Jesse Fulcher Cleveland/Hall St. development concems Seite 1
From: Stephenie Foster <stephenief@gmail.com>
To: <Jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 3/26/2012 10:19 AM
Subject: Cleveland/Hall St. development concerns
Hi Jesse,
I live on Sunset Dr. and have had children attending Leverett
Elementary for the last eleven years. I would like to express my
concerns regarding the proposed development for the apartments at the
corner of Cleveland and Hall Streets.
First, I am concerned about the size of the project. Traffic is
fairly heavy in that area already with the current apartments,
elementary school, and university parking. This new development
proposes to increase habitation on that corner by over 350%. The
current road configuration cannot support that kind of an increase in
traffic. Dangers already abound for pedestrians (many of them being
small children) along the Cleveland sidewalk, and this project would
multiply those dangers threefold. I have almost been struck by cars
twice while crossing in the crosswalk this year. Additionally, the
plans show the removal of practically all of the mature trees, and
placement of the new structure very close (within 2 or 3 feet) to the
sidewalk. The plans show a wider sidewalk (8') with tree planters
(3'x5') placed along the road side of the sidewalk. This is probably
to accommodate the smokers who come over from the University property
to smoke. The traffic (vehicular and pedestrian) that would result
from a development this size is not supported by the current roadway
infrastructure. I hope you will consider all the concerns of the
neighbors and school parents as you review this project.
Thank you,
Stephenie Foster
stephenief@gmail.com
479-236-4975
{3/26/2012) Jesse Fulcher proposed project for corner of Cleveland and Hall streetsTETITISeite 1
From:
"Gail L. Halleck" <ghalleck@uark.edu>
To:
"Jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <Jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date:
3/26/2012 12:53 PM
Subject:
proposed project for corner of Cleveland and Hall streets
Good afternoon Mr. Fulcher,
I was made aware of the details of the proposed large housing development across from Leverett
Elementary on the comer of Hall and Cleveland streets. I have many concerns. As a parent who fought
tirelessly years ago during a school district rezoning process that consdered closing Leverett Elementary,
I have a strong fondness for and interest in preserving this school. I had a child there then and also do
now. I strongly believe in the need for this historic, wonderful school in this very location. Leverett over the
past 100+ years has enjoyed many of the benefits of being in close proximity to the University. It is my
hope that anyone who builds in the vicinity of this school takes a critical look at what environment can and
should coexist with the 4-11 year olds that also inhabit this space as well as preserving the character of
the surrounding neighborhood.
The scale of the proposed project seems too large for the 2.7 acre lot. To be adjacent to a school and add
that much traffic would be like pouring several hundred more gallons of water into a bucket that is already
full. There are enough traffic issues on Cleveland and Hall streets without adding a 220 -unit, 5 -story
development with 446 more parking spaces. And so it also seems to be a question of infrastructure in this
regard.
I beg you as the city planner assigned to this project to help the developers reconsider the scope and size
of this project. And also to encourage them to meet with concerned parents and neighbors or maybe with
just a few appointed representatives from the university, Leverett and the neighborhood association to
brainstorm what might be done with that land to better serve the community at large, not just one
particular segment of the community. There are so many creative parents and neighbors surrounding
Leverett, some of whom are architects and involved in city planning, thus mitigating the frustrations of
dealing with ignorance of issues pertaining to such a project. I can't help but think that amazing things
would come out of such meetings and that development could go forward with the full support of the
neighbors and the community.
I thank you for your time reading and considering this,
Repectfully yours,
Gail Halleck
n6/2012� Jesse Fulcher proposed plan for apts Cleveland and Hall Seite'1
From:
rharriso <rharriso@uark.edu>
To:
<jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date:
3/26/2012 2:55 PM
Subject:
proposed plan for apts. Cleveland and Hall
Dear Mr. Fulcher, I am writing to indicate my objection to the proposed new
apartments to be built on Cleveland and Hall. I live at 611 Oliver, the
historic Oliver farmhouse for the area. We feel that adding so many cars is
a real detriment to an area of relatively quiet single family dwellings and
especially since there is an elementary school right on Cleveland where we
have been working to achieve traffic calming. new sidewalks are in for
students. These just finished, for some time now we have been considering
how to slow down the traffic so that children and adults can cross
Cleveland safely. A new stop sign has been installed to meet this need.
this is perhaps the only residential neighborhood that borders the campus
and its need must be considered. Rebecca Newth Harrison
(3/26%2012 Jesse Fulcher Project Cleveland Seite 1 `
From: Nancy McCartney <nmccartn@hotmail.com>
To:<jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 3/26/2012 4:09 PM
Subject: Project Cleveland
Dear Mr. Fulcher:
It is with trepidation that I read about the proposed development "Project Cleveland" on the corner of Hall
and Cleveland. I have lived in the University Heights neighborhood since 1980 and have seen the traffic
escalate tremendously. Every day I drive cautiously past Leverett School on my way out Garland to The
Farm trying to negotiate all the terrible traffic at the SE corner of the school at 7:45 am and again about
4:30 pm. I have often thought I should send a drawing of the amazing gyrations that occur there as
people try to pick up/deposit kids, cross the street with and against the light, and turn into the Hotz Hall
parking lot. I am totally surprised that there hasn't been a very serious accident there with the current
level of traffic. My kids used to walk: I don't think I would allow that if I were a parent now (which of
course just compounds the traffic). The noise, hazards to kids, pedestrians, motorists plus the litter
(already tremendous, especially on game days) is surely going to increase with this proposed
development. Ergo, I propose not allowing it. Thank you.
Mr. Jesse Fulcher,
My wife and I live at 668 Gray Ave. We're just west of the proposed development at
Cleveland and Hall. After looking at the plans, living in this neighborhood for thirty-one
years, raising a family here, having my wife, child and I attend the U of A, employment
of my wife and son at the U of A, dealing with the constant migration of students in and
out of the U of A, parking for football & basketball, increasing student and Fayetteville
population and the autos and motorcycles that follow, having to travel through or around
the U of A to go anywhere except west on Cleveland towards I 540, I can say with
inarguable confidence, utmost determination and unwavering command of the
environment, transportation, and sheer developmental folly that plagues the U of A
campus and the surrounding neighborhoods, that this development will destroy the
character of a family friendly neighborhood, diminish property values; destroy what little
sanity is left now for travel around the area, increase traffic issues exponentially and cost
the city and taxpayers millions of dollars to meet the already overburdened infrastructure
and increasing crime. Furthermore, given the sheer number of un-rented, unused, vacant,
previous abandoned holes in the ground left by very poorly thought-out plans, made by
so-called, well-meaning developers and approved by our city leaders, this project looks,
sounds, and smells like a large, bankrupt hole in the ground. It is unnecessary, foolish,
and fiscally irresponsible. When all falls apart, which it most assuredly will, the city and
taxpayers will be left holding the bill. Then, it will all be blamed on the economy. We've
got plenty of examples all around the campus and city from which to learn. Do we need
yet one more slap across the face to learn this lesson? This is not a project that should be
remotely considered as beneficial or even remotely needed. It is and will be a very
expensive boondoggle. I'll live with the congregation of nicotine addicts on the brick
wall along Cleveland ANY DAY before I'd chose replacing them with this lunacy.
We've paid dearly enough for the inflated egos of self-serving developers. Please, say
`no' to this. Please.
Joe Paul
(3/27%201 yJesse Fulcher Student Housing Development Cleveland SUHall Ave M Seite 1
From: Justin Eichmann <rjeichmann@gmail.com>
To: <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 3/27/2012 12:30 AM
Subject: Student Housing Development - Cleveland St/Hall Ave.
Jesse, I am writing in regard to the proposed student housing development
at the corner of Cleveland St. and Hall Ave across from Leverett Elementary
School. I live at 648 N. Gray Ave., just a few blocks from this site and I
have a child who attends Leverett and another who will attend Leverett next
year. Please have this email placed with the public comment received on
this application.
I believe the development has several problems, namely:
1) Inappropriate Transition. This development is an inappropriate
transition from the residential neighborhood area and Leverett Elementary
to the east, north and west. A 222 unit, 5-6 story development at a 75
foot height is a very large and dense project on such a small piece of
property, especially when it transitions to a low -intensity residential
neighborhood area such as the Hall and Cleveland area. Contrary to the
guiding policies for residential neighborhood areas in the city's 2030
plan, this project does not represent a development scale that maintains
compatibility, use and proportionality with the surrounding residential
area. In fact, I believe this development could in fact shadow residences
and parts of the Leverett playground at different times of day and the year.
2) Traffic. The project would impact Cleveland St. and Hall Ave., both of
which are intended for more moderate levels of traffic flow and service.
The parking garage entrance and exit is onto Hall Ave, designated as a
local street, is not only an intensive use of this street but is also
directly across from the Leverett Elementary playground. Hall Ave. is
bounded at one end by Leverett Elementary and the other end with a steep
T -intersection with Wedington Dr. In between are single family residences.
I feel like the impact of hundreds and hundreds of vehicles on this local
street is unwise, especially with the recent construction of dormitories
and parking decks by the University in the vicinity.
3) Appropriate Infill Location. Across the intersection of Hall Ave. and
Wedington Drive is a 6 -acre parcel of undeveloped property located behind
the Harps Grocery Store that is currently for sale. This property is
located just a few thousand feet away and is a much more appropriate
location for a project of this size, density and impact as it better
transitions with the commercial and multi -family (including student
housing) uses in that area. Furthermore, it abuts a principal arterial
street better served for the vehicle traffic that this development will
attract. I point out this available property only as a illustration that
other appropriate infill opportunities exist in this same area. Removing
an existing family apartment complex along with 4 single family homes in
order to replace them with a project of a density of 80 units per acre is
not the only, and I feel not the best, infill opportunity in this immediate
area.
I thank for you consideration of my opinions and I hope planning staff will
not recommend approval of this PZD application.
Thanks,
3/27/2012 Jesse Fulcher - Student Housing Develo merit Clevelandd SUHaII Ave. Seite 2
Justin Eichmann
648 N. Gray Ave.
3/29/2012 Jesse Fulcher - PZD at Cleveland and Hall Seite 1
From: "Burt H. Bluhm" <bbluhm@uark.edu>
To:"jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 3/27/2012 9:26 PM
Subject: PZD at Cleveland and Hall
Hi Jesse,
My name is Burt Bluhm — my family lives at 930 N Hall Avenue in Fayetteville. We purchased our house
approximately 2 years ago so that I could walk to work (I am a professor at UA) and it seemed like a great
neighborhood in which to raise my two little girls. We were drawn to the quiet, peaceful feel of the block,
especially considering its proximity to campus and the elementary school. As a homeowner, I have some
serious concerns and reservations about the proposed re -zoning of the apartment complex/adjoining
properties at the intersection of Cleveland and Hall, approximately a half block from my property. As
understand it, a -250 unit apartment complex + parking garage is being planned for the site. I think there
are some serious questions that need to be carefully considered before a project of this scope should go
forward in this particular location. I have tried to condense my concerns down into three major concepts:
1. The (single) proposed outlet for the parking garage is on Hall Ave., directly across from the elementary
school playground. This will dramatically change the traffic flow on Hall, and on Cleveland (which is often
quite busy at certain times of the day - I can tell you personally, since I cross that intersection on foot at
least twice a day). I just don't think Hall is designed to handle this level of traffic, and I cannot believe the
developer's project description claiming that no traffic study is required/warranted. It seems to me that a
privately owned development project of this type (apartments + parking garage) must be quite rare or
currently non-existant in Fayetteville. What do we know about potential impacts on neighborhood traffic?
Noise? Crime?
2. For better or worse, and in my opinion probably worse, this project will permanently change the
character of the neighborhood. I think we need to question as a community whether an apartment
complex that is so urban in nature that it requires a parking garage is really the direction Fayetteville
should go with development near campus. I sincerely hope to be a 30+ year resident of Hall Avenue, and
I can easily foresee a day in 15-20 years when a 250 -unit complex as proposed falls on hard times/poor
management, and becomes a blight for the neighborhood as well as campus. Frankly, I have already
witnessed some problems with the existing apartment complex during the two years I have lived here,
such as domestic disturbances that spill out onto Hall Ave. It just seems to me that we as a community
should be very, very cautious about development projects of this scale, especially when they are literally
across the street from campus and an elementary school, and within a stone's throw of the Chancellor's
house.
3. I would like to hear discussion of the 'campus edge' zoning being proposed vs. the current zoning for
the property in question. It seems to me the property has its current zoning for a very specific set of
reasons, and that rezoning to 'campus edge' should thus be very clearly warranted and be consistent with
the wishes of homeowners (such as myself) who will be affected for years to come should the proposed
development come to pass. For example, I strongly suspect that this development would negatively
affect the value of my house, and thus the developer's profits would come, to some extent, at the cost of
the owner -occupants who live on Hall Avenue.
I wish I could attend some of the upcoming public meetings at which this development will be discussed,
but I am traveling quite a bit over the next several weeks. I would certainly value your opinions/feedback
on these concerns and perhaps we could sit down over coffee to talk about it sometime in April.
Thanks for your time
Very best regards,
Burt Bluhm
X4/2/2012) Jesse Fulcher - Oppostion to proposed apartment com�ilex on Cleveland/Hall Sede 1
From: <wmertins@mertinslaw.com>
To: <Jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 3/30/2012 3:18 PM
Subject: Opposition to proposed apartment complex on Cleveland/Hall
Dear Mr. Fulcher -
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed
development on Cleveland/Hall. I have 3 children at Leverett,
and live in the University Heights Neighborhood. The proposed
development is out of character with the the neighborhood, is
ridiculously out of scale with the adjoining single family homes,
further erodes the character of our neighborhood, and poses
substantial risk to the children who walk and bike to Leverett
Elementary.
I am not opposed to growth, but am strongly opposed to reckless
growth that destroys neighborhoods, increases traffic in an
already taxed neighborhood, undermines the safety of our
children, and kills any prospect of them safely walking or biking
to school. This corner cannot support an additional 200 units,
446 more cars, and the problems that come with them.
Please do all in your power to stop this project or send it back
to the developer for a more sensible proposal.
William Mertins
Mertins Law Firm, PLLC
300 N. College Ave, Suite 200
PO Box 1762
Fayetteville, AR 72702-1762
479-582-1560
www.mertinslaw.com
Page 1 of 1
Planning - "Project Cleveland" proposed development
From: Joy M Williams <williamsjoym@gmail.com>
To: <PLANNING@CI.FAYETTEVILLE.AR.US>
Date: 4/3/2012 5:35 PM
Subject: "Project Cleveland" proposed development
Apri13, 2012
To Whom It May Concern:
We are writing to express concerns about the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of the
property at the intersection of Cleveland Street and Hall Ave. The design for "Project Cleveland", as
submitted, virtually quadruples the current existing 60 units. The impact of the increased traffic
associated with that dense of development cannot be accommodated in this neighborhood. Traffic is
already heavy and pedestrian safety is currently a concern. The University and elementary school traffic
create a very dicey situation, particularly in the morning. A traffic study will, no doubt, bear this out.
The driveway to the proposed complex's parking deck is on Hall and traffic coming or going North or
South will exacerbate either the existing University neighborhood traffic problem or create new
challenges at Hall and Wedington Drive. There is no good way to go.
Secondary to the primary traffic problem issue is the height of the proposed structure. It would loom at
the South end of Hall Avenue - the highest point on the block. The developer references the structure's
various heights and compliance to code, as in 60' adjacent to a single-family residence, but it also
proposes an "85' interior structure". The development will be so much higher than any house on Hall,
and then feel even higher due to the slope. Transition to the existing neighborhood is a concern and
height disparity is the biggest issue.
We are not opposed to rental property or apartments in the neighborhood as it is currently zoned. But the
PZD allows for way too much density and subsequent traffic.
Please add this email to the project's file as maintained by the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
John and Joy Williams
924 Hall Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
file://C:\Documents and Settings\cmonreal\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4F7B34FFFA... 4/6/2012
(4/6/2012) Jesse Fulcher Re Prolecf Cleveland proposed development Seite 1
From: Jesse Fulcher
To: Planning
Subject: Re: "Project Cleveland" proposed development
April 3, 2012
To Whom It May Concern
We are writing to express concerns about the proposed rezoning and subsequent development of the property at the
intersection of Cleveland Street and Hall Ave.The design for "Project Cleveland", as submitted, virtually quadruples
the current existing 60 units.The impact of the increased traffic associated with that dense of development cannot be
accommodated in this neighborhood.Traffic is already heavy and pedestrian safety is currently a concem.The
University and elementary school traffic create a very dicey situation, particularly in the moming.A traffic study
will, no doubt, bear this out.The driveway to the proposed complex's parking deck is on Hall and traffic coming or
going North or South will exacerbate either the existing University neighborhood traffic problem or create new
challenges at Hall and Wedington Drive.There is no good way to go.
Secondary to the primary traffic problem issue is the height of the proposed structure.It would loom at the South end
of Hall Avenue - the highest point on the block.The developer references the structure's various heights and
compliance to code, as in 60' adjacent to a single-family residence, but it also proposes an "85' interior
structure" The development will be so much higher than any house on Hall, and then feel even higher due to the
slope.Transition to the existing neighborhood is a concern and height disparity is the biggest issue.
We are not opposed to rental property or apartments in the neighborhood as it is currently zoned.But the PZD allows
for way too much density and subsequent traffic.
Please add this email to the project's file as maintained by the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
John and Joy Williams
924 Hall Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
[(4/11/2012),Jesse Fulcher Re Opposition to proposed apartment complex on Cleveland/Hall Seite 1
From: <wmertins@mertinslaw.com>
To: Jesse Fulcher <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 4/10/2012 2:13 PM
Subject: Re: Opposition to proposed apartment complex on Cleveland/Hall
Mr. Fulcher - I am writing to renew my protest of the proposed
apartment complex on Cleveland/Hall Streets. Even with the
revisions proposed by the developer, the project is still
terribly out of scale for the neighborhood, and the developer's
own traffic study should stop this project dead in its tracks.
If Fayetteville wants to preserve single family neighborhoods and
neighborhood schools, this proposed project must be stopped or
substantially reformed.
I wish I could protest this proposed development at each meeting
of the Commission or Council, but my work and family obligations
prevent me. Instead, please forward this email to all who may be
considering this project, and know that I strongly oppose the
proposed development for the reasons set out above and in my
March 30 email below.
Perhaps this project would be better suited to the 27 acre field
by Temple at the bottom of Cleveland hill, or the empty land on
Wedington west of Harps. Both tracts are for sale, and would be
far better fits than the intersection of Cleveland and Hall
streets.
Again, I strongly oppose the proposed apartment complex on
Cleveland and Hall, and urge all who are considering it to reject
the developer's request.
Thank you for your time.
William Mertins
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012, at 02:52 PM, Jesse Fulcher wrote:
Mr. Mertins,
Thank you for your feedback. I will include your comments with
the staff
report that will be presented to the Planning Commission and City
Council. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can
do.
Sincerely,
P/11/2012) Jesse Fulcher- Re: Opposition to proposed apartment complex on Cleveland/Hall Saits 2
Jesse Fulcher
Jesse Fulcher
Current Planner
City of Fayetteville
479-575-8267
[1 ]jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
(TDD 479-521-1316 Telecommunication Device for the Deaf)
<[2]wmertins@mertinslaw.com> 3/30/2012 3:17 PM >>>
Dear Mr. Fulcher -
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed
development on Cleveland/Hall. I have 3 children at Leverett,
and live in the University Heights Neighborhood. The proposed
development is out of character with the the neighborhood, is
ridiculously out of scale with the adjoining single family homes,
further erodes the character of our neighborhood, and poses
substantial risk to the children who walk and bike to Leverett
Elementary.
I am not opposed to growth, but am strongly opposed to reckless
growth that destroys neighborhoods, increases traffic in an
already taxed neighborhood, undermines the safety of our
children, and kills any prospect of them safely walking or biking
to school. This corner cannot support an additional 200 units,
446 more cars, and the problems that come with them.
, (4/11/2012) Jesse Fulcher- Re: O osition to proposed a artmenfcomplex on Cleveland/tj lCTTISeite 3
Please do all in your power to stop this project or send it back
to the developer for a more sensible proposal.
Mertins Law Firm, PLLC
300 N. College Ave, Suite 200
PO Box 1762
Fayetteville, AR 72702-1762
479-582-1560
www.mertinslaw.com
References
1. mailto:jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
2. mailto:wmertins@mertinslaw.com
(4/12/2012 Jesse Fulcher - Hall and Cleveland Seite 1
From: Susan <sgard10720@aol.com>
To: "jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 4/11/2012 7:27 PM
Subject: Hall and Cleveland
Thank you for your email. As we discussed, I am very much against the proposed development on the
corner of Hall and Cleveland. As a current homeowner, we already have a problem with the traffic on Hall
not obeying the posted speed limit, the residents of the existing apartments do not use the crosswalks
and the crossing guards at Leverettt School are concerned about increased traffic and student safety.
In addition I do worry about my property value falling next to such a development. I think there is more
than enough property for sale in the area already zoned for such a large scale complex.
The North end of campus has had a huge increase in both student parking and student housing in past
five years (U of A parking deck and the Maple Hill dorms as well as the return to student housing of the
two towers).
I feel that this development should not proceed. Susan Gardner
Sent from my iPhone
(4/26/201) Jesse Fulcher - proposed rivate student housin at Clevelandand Hall Seite 1
From: Delia Buffington <deezyb@sbcglobal.net>
To: <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 4/25/2012 8:58 PM
Subject: proposed private student housing at Cleveland and Hall
Dear Mr. Fulcher, My husband,Tom, and I live at 639 North Oliver, just
around the corner from the proposed new private student housing. We
both attended the University of Arkansas as did two of our children
and we are big supporters in several ways. Progress can be measured
in many ways, but we cannot support a private,multi storied, high
density dorm of this size just a block and a half away from our small,
overburdened street and call it progress. Please keep our
neighborhood a neighborhood that is not over run by traffic and all
the problems associated with such density. Let elementary students,
college students and families coexist without placing undue burdens on
any group. Diversity is wholesome and healthy. Thank you for your
consideration and let me go on record to the planning commission and
City Council as a NO vote for the proposed, privately owned, student
housing at the corner of Cleveland and Hall. Sincerely, Dee Buffington
Dear Strategic Planning,
My name is Mikel Lolley. I live at 20 S. Hill Avenue, where I have lived and invested for nearly 29 years.
We are located opposite the UofA campus from the proposed Project Cleveland, but we share many of
the same issues as the University Heights neighborhood. We can only wish that this type of
development was under consideration in our neighborhood. Allow me to explain:
1) We love living adjacent to the UofA campus. The campus provides us with wonderful amenities
that we take full advantage of. But,theUofA also poses the most significant threat to the future
of our immediate neighborhood. The UofA could at any time assume that they need to expand
into our neighborhood to build student housing. They would simplybuy-up our neighborhood
via imminent domain. We see private development at the scale proposed by Project Cleveland
as the only force large enough to stand in the way of any future plans by the UofAmarching into
neighborhoods, and snatching -up the underutilized and undervalued properties. We also know
that we would have much more of a say in the quality of a proposed private development
vetted thru the City of Fayetteville than if it was a public development vetted and built by
theUofA.
2) We love the walkability, the density and the diversity of our immediate neighborhood. We have
always known that with the future growth of the both the UofA and the City of Fayetteville, we
would see nothing but increased pressureon our neighborhood. We now endure a 2am
pedestrian rush hour on Hill Avenue that did not exist a few short years ago. Still, we continue
to invest in this neighborhood, and adjustwith the understanding that this neighborhood will
continue to change and become increasingly walked, dense and diverse given its prime location.
It is utterly unrealistic for people living adjacent to the UofAcampus, or Downtown to expect
that these neighborhood's inparticular will remain exactly the same forever, and that
Fayetteville's 2030 Plan is good for the City, so long as it's not in my back yard.
3) We love contributing to the modest re -gentrification of our older neighborhood. We would love
to see a project at the scale and quality of the proposed Project Cleveland and witnessprivate
infill developmenttake-on the long overdue investment in replacing the aging infrastructure for
water, sewer, sidewalks, crosswalks, street lights, and bicycle lanes. Our neighborhood has
changed significantly from when it was annexed into the City of Fayetteville as the Putman
Addition 100 years ago —Fayetteville's first suburb. It will continue to change from its suburban
.roots into a downtown neighborhood,and need the amenities that come from that type of
growth. We would rather see these upgrades coming from the private sector whenever possible
through appropriate infill development and see our tax dollars spent on other things. What
better way to finance these significant infrastructure improvements than thru private infill
development.
4) We regard the student housing recently built by the UofAon the south side of Cleveland as a
modest improvement, certainly better than the 1960's housing blocks that litter the UofA
skyline, but still find this student housing grossly out of scale and lacking in vitality. We think
that the private sector does a much better job anticipating markets (student expectations) and
designing more vital communities at appropriate scale than state agency, as evidenced by
theUofA over the decades. We would rather see the UofA stick to what they do well, and leave
student housing to the private sector. Let the private sector develop to market expectations, as
well as develop a more vital and alive infill project that can complement an existing
neighborhood.
5) We coexist with the traffic that is in our neighborhood, and understand that it will continue as
the neighborhood becomes increasingly central, sandwiched between two cities for theUofA
and Downtown Fayetteville. But we have also come to know via the 30 apartment units that we
own and manage that a large contingent of cars sit idle in the lot, Monday thru Friday, and only
get moved on the weekends. The fear for increased traffic coming from walkable infill
development is unfounded in our direct and personal experience. Why drive when it's easier
and cheaper to walk? It's why we live downtown.
6) We would welcome the type and quality of infill development being proposed by Project
Cleveland into our neighborhood. It would increase our property values, addto the tax rolls, and
the property would remain in the private domain and in lieu of in State control, adding tax
revenue for our public schools for decades to come.
7) We would welcome this type of infill development for removing blighted properties that pose a
whole host of issues far worse than a few more students in one professionally managed
property, rather than a bunch of students crammed into a few run down houses that aren't
being managed at all.Futhermore, the pressure for density has to be relieved from somewhere,
and the proposed Project Cleveland could not be in a more appropriate location.
8) Fayetteville, as evidenced by the last census, is going thru transformational growth and change.
We see Project Cleveland as exactly the type of infill development, consistent with the goals of
the 2025 Plan and the 2030 Update, that we wish to see for Fayetteville's future. This
development is in the most appropriate of locations, and is merely taking an existing blighted
multi -family apartment building, and a few run down houses, adjacent to an elementary school
and replacing them to create a much better situation for everyone.
The UofA would be a dreadful alternative to private investment within our immediate neighborhood
and concentrated private investment will prove the only way to render those properties adjacent to
the UofA from being obtained via imminent domain. We would welcome Project Cleveland to keep
our neighborhood in private hands, where we would have much more of a say in what gets built,
ensuring that it adds to the overall vitality of our immediate neighborhood, and how it gets
managed and maintained well into the future.
Sincerely, Mikel C Lolley
20 S. Hill Ave. / Fayetteville AR 72701 / 479.841.7801 / mikel.lolley@gmail.com
(4/3012012 Jesse Fulcher - Project Cleveland Mikel Lolley Seite 1
From: Julia Kennefick <kennefick@mac.com>
To: Jesse Fulcher <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
CC: Mikel Lolley <mikel.lolley@gmail.com>
Date: 4/30/2012 3:49 PM
Subject: Project Cleveland - Mikel Lolley
Dear Mr. Fulcher,
Re, Mr. Lolley's recent comments on Project Cleveland, I have previously expressed my views on this
proposed
development, and they are not out of line with Mr. Lolley's views. I am for infill development whole
heartedly,
and welcome it in my own backyard. However, I enjoy the green space in the current apartment block as
it
faces Cleveland, and in looking at the proposed development, I notice that many of the large trees that
line Cleveland will be removed. I see that they are keeping perhaps some of the existing canopy and
doing
a good job replacing the actual trees, but the green space on Cleveland itself will be lost. I like the idea of
a development there, but again hope it can be done to fit in to the existing residential neighborhood and
not edge right up to the sidewalk, especially as the buildings as proposed will be quite high.
The traffic is definitely a concern for me. My husband was recently hit as a pedestrian there while holding
my two year old daughter and walking my 11 year old son to school. Luckily he was not injured, but it is
scary to contemplate. Folks use those residential streets as a way to avoid the Wedington/Garland
intersection.
The traffic through there in its current state leaves much to be desired. Again, I simply want to express
that
if the proposed development goes through, that careful attention be paid to the traffic infrastructure in
the area. Overall, I think it is improving, but we need to keep up with the increased traffic problems as
more students live "off campus" even if that housing is right across the street from the actual campus. I
take
Mr. Lolley's point that keeping students close is a good thing, to increase the number of students that can
walk. I love living close to campus and see it as a huge positive in my family's life.
Have the developers considered adding any store fronts to their project? I guess that would raise a whole
other set of traffic concerns!
Best wishes,
Julia Kennefick
920 Sunset Dr.
Fayetteville AR 72701
479-439-0199
! 5/2/2012 Jesse Fulcher - Cleveland & Hall Seite 1
From:
"Barbara Fraleigh" <barbara@secureusinc.com>
To:
<jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date:
5/2/2012 3:02 PM
Subject:
Cleveland & Hall
Dear Mr. Fulcher,
This letter is in regards to the proposed development at the corner of
Cleveland & Hall Streets.
As a thirty year homeowner in the neighborhood, I would like to suggest that
the size and location of project is not suitable for this location. As I
drive by this corner, I try to imagine the impact that the proposed
development would have on an already established residential neighborhood
and Leverett Elementary School. In my opinion, it is not a good fit.
I can understand the motivation of the investor/developer to try to build
close to the University. There is certainly a flurry of this type of
building activity within Fayetteville right now catering to the student
population. Their paperwork and designs all look wonderful on paper, but
the impact of such a large development cannot be good for the established
neighborhood.
I would hope that our investments in our neighborhood are not disregarded.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barbara Fraleigh
1624 W. Halsell Road
Fayetteville, AR 72701
L/8/2012) Jesse Fulcher Fwd Project Cleveland Seite 1
From: beverly schaffer <bschaffer@arkansas.net>
To: Jesse Fulcher<jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 5/4/2012 4:34 PM
Subject: Fwd: Project Cleveland
Jesse, here are some thoughts I shared today with the Ward 4 aldermen. Thanks, Beverly Schaffer
Begin forwarded message:
> From: beverly schaffer <bschaffer@arkansas.net>
> Date: May 4, 2012 1:25:07 PM CDT
> To: Sarah Lewis <sarahelainelewis@gmail.com>, Rhonda Adams <Rhonda@adamsward4.com>
> Cc: Archie Schaffer <archie.schaffer@tyson.com>
> Subject: Project Cleveland
> Dear Sarah and Rhonda,
> Thank you for arranging for Seth Mims to come to the Ward 4 meeting Monday night and share the new
plans for this project. The current plans were approved yesterday by the subdivision committee of the
planning commission. I believe the committee recommended approval of the project.
> The plans for this project are an improvement over the first two versions. However, the building
footprint is the same except for the lowered height on the north, east and south perimeters. The parking
deck in the center is still almost 7 ft. The number of units dropped from 170 to 122 (yesterday, I heard
they may have dropped that number again by 5 or so). However, the units now are almost all 4 person
units rather than the 1, 2 and 4 mix originally planned. That is allowing them to keep the density high,
around 450 renters and vehicles. So while the scale of the building was reduced modestly, and the
number of units was reduced by half since the first number was floated (220), the density and number of
vehicles has been reduced by only 20%.
> The building will be a non-smoking complex and Seth says they will not allow smoking on the sidewalks.
That's an improvement. However, there is no ordinance that prohibits smoking on sidewalks so I don't
know how the property managers can prohibit it. Unfortunately, this development could push the smoking
further down Hall or Cleveland until a broader solution is implemented.
> Also, the plans now provide for parallel parking in front of the building on Cleveland. All parking on that
stretch of Cleveland was removed two years ago after abuse by the dorm residents who simply stored
their cars up and down the street for days at a time, even in the "no parking" areas. The developers say
street parking helps slow down traffic. That may be true in some places. That was not the case on
Cleveland, however. Many of the neighborhood residents complained repeatedly to the police and the
city transportation division about the dangerous conditions on Cleveland due to the student parking on the
north side and the speeding vehicles. Finally, the city agreed that all parking should be eliminated. We
do not want to see it returned. Brad Anderson and Jeff Coles probably can verify the history of these
parking problems and the decision to remove parking from the street. In any case, I can't see how there is
room for street parking in front of the building. The intersection at Hall and Cleveland already will be very
congested and the developers are asking for a dedicated bike lane on one side of the street, as well.
Adding parked vehicles to the curb will create another diversion and possibly worsen the visibility for
drivers turning left onto Hall from Cleveland. I hope these plans will get very close scrutiny.
> The building still is going to be squeezed onto that corner and will dramatically alter the character of the
block between Hall and Razorback. It's an improvement in some ways but it's discouraging that it will not
be the kind of development that would bring families or UA faculty or staff into the neighborhood rather
than more dorm rooms. I want to make sure this doesn't become the trend all along the perimeter of
campus.
> We think the scale of the building still is incompatible with the neighborhood. The developers continue
a X5/8%2012) Jesse Fulcher Fwd. Project Cleveland Seite 2
to stress that the building is not as tall as the Maple Hill dorms but they avoid discussing the vast
difference in scale when compared to every single property on the north side of Cleveland. The north
side of Cleveland is not a part of the UA campus. If the compatibility of future structures proposed for the
neighborhood streets abutting campus will be judged not by the scale of the existing homes and buildings
on the north side of Cleveland but by what has been built across the street on the UA campus in an
institutional zoning area, homeowners will be encouraged to sell their properties to developers and get out
of the neighborhood now. We don't think the city can deny the next developer the same scale and
density all the way around "campus edge" if this project is approved. With the emphasis placed on
student housing as a priority above all other considerations, the north side of Cleveland is likelier than not
to evolve into an adjunct to campus. Once that invisible line between campus and neighborhood begins to
erode, it will be nearly impossible to stop the further decline of University Heights.
> These are some of my thoughts on the project as it currently stands.
> Thank you for all you do to represent the residents of Ward 4.
> Beverly
(5/7/2012) Jesse Fulcher - Re: Cleveland and Hall Street development; email changeTT TTiTTThTTTE1
From:
rharriso <rharriso@uark.edu>
To:
Jesse Fulcher <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date:
5/7/2012 7:50 AM
Subject:
Re: Cleveland and Hall Street development; email change
dear Jesse Fulcher, please note I have had to change my email to:
rebeccanewth@gmail.com I am in university heights neighborhood and
involved with cleveland hall development news. must be on west coast may
9th however. i am against the hugeness of the development as not in
keeping with neighborhood, increasing smoking, trash, traffic (all of
which we have dealt with when university stopped allowing smokers on
campus. now we have to pick up cigarette butts and trash that comes along
with it such as bottles, packages, junk food, cans, cups) Perhaps the city
is trying to get leverett school moved, as it has tried before, and by
putting such traffic and congestion right next to the school is another
way of accomplishing that? sorry to seem so jaded. Rebecca Harrison
Quoting Jesse Fulcher <jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>:
>> Neighbors,
> > I wanted to let you know that the applicant for the project at the
> > comer of Cleveland and Hall has requested that the development
> > application scheduled for the Subdivision Committee meeting tomorrow
> > at 9:00 AM be tabled until the following meeting date on May 3rd. The
> > project has already been advertised and is listed on the agenda, so
> > anyone in attendance can comment on the project, or wait until the
> > upcoming meetings in May.
> > The latest project proposal and staff comments are available for to
> > review on the City's website at
> > ftp://ftp.accessfayetteville.org/Published/Development%20Review/
> > Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
> > Sincerely,
> > Jesse Fulcher
> > Jesse Fulcher
> > Current Planner
> > City of Fayetteville
> > 479-575-8267
> > jfulcher@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
> > (TDD 479-521-1316 Telecommunication Device for the Deaf)
We know the university is projected to grow and that we are going to have to find somewhere to
house the students. Cleveland Street and Hall is not that place for the following reasons.
The area is heavily trafficked. Cleveland is a two-lane collector street. For some years now the
University Heights Neighborhood has been seeking to handle this by putting in a three way stop
at Razorback and Cleveland, by putting in sidewalks which narrow Cleveland and let neighbors
and elementary school students walk more safely along Cleveland.
The area has a trash problem because it forms the border between the University and the town
making it possible for students to smoke on the north side of Cleveland but not on the south.
This has created piles of cigarette butts and packages and drink cups and cans and so forth. Mr.
Bayari the owner of the rental property has been contacted several times and has even offered to
remove his stone wall (where students sit to smoke) but nothing has solved the problem of the
sidewalk on the north of Cleveland being a smoking `lounge'. He, however, has only a 60 unit
building.
There is an elementary school directly opposite the prospective Cleveland Project.
There is an intact and well -established neighborhood, the only one bordering the University,
where you suggest allowing a unit with 421 parking spaces. Oliver Street alone, one street West
of Razorback, contains the following important properties.
1. The chancellor's house.
2. A Fay Jones house formerly called the Hotz House.
3. Another early Fay Jones house, perhaps the earliest.
4. The Oliver Farmhouse circa 1883 with land deeds going back to 1853 (in the process of
having placed on the historic registry).
5. The Judge Meriwether House.
And there are other Fay Jones houses and architect designed houses in neighboring blocks.
It would seem in retrospect that this kind of neighborhood should be left alone to continue to
evolve as the University does, rather than to erode it until there is no neighborhood anymore.
Anyone can enter a campus through athletic facilities and through rental units but it is special to
be able to drive and walk among old and homey houses with gardens and sheep pastures. Infill is
not going to enhance that. You may think that a rental unit such as the one proposed will not
affect the areas I am talking about, but that would be wrong.
So with these ideas I respectfully submit this letter.
Rebecca Newth Harrison
611 North Oliver Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701
443-4403
Page 1 of 1
City Clerk - Material for June 4th City Council Meeting- Agenda Item Project Cleveland
From: D'lorah Hughes <dlorahlynn@yahoo.com>
To: "ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
"city _clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us"<city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/4/2012 11:20 AM
Subject: Material for June 4th City Council Meeting- Agenda Item Project Cleveland
CC: Schaffer Archie <archie.schaffer@tyson.com>, beverly schaffer
<bcchaffer@arkansas.net>
Attachments: NO Project Cleveland Petitions.pdf
Madame Clerk,
Attached please find a petition relevant to an item on tomorrow night's City Council agenda.
The petition is signed by residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west
of the University of Arkansas who oppose the proposed "Project Cleveland" development.
Please include this email and the attached petition as part of the public record/City Council
packet.
Please note that the red -lined signatures indicate nearby residents who oppose the
development but live outside of the neighborhood as described in the petition.
If you have any questions or require the original petitions, please feel free to contact me or
the Schaffers.
Thanks,
D'lorah Hughes
file:///C:/Users/ssmith/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/4FCC99EAFAYETTEVILLECIT... 6/4/2012
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Pro%ecctt Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
51
A
Rev, 6/98 16263
SZ9l 96,9 AUH
'�
))c N 606 -Nvb�as—_`>,,
�/ of '-' f' ri %i Ft �k `a v—� .n �, aZf s� r P
i
�-y v
5ThT)ti?r47LA 7W7 1)
LrcFj—ttq
7c�� i�U�is
,pnoyangq nau tits{ haµ it; uui 1 auotsig ay1 a aaaattl rn d;ag putt; ptmia t;) tvdn.td t"' ON 't"^
p,uapmgta+o an:pnaiIt Irgl Za'J1+ pooyx)gy,tau Zat;to flue t'0ils pur.lasal) 'anuat\IIPI1 <ti ai,Gua1
irut"i1pps tlarttu ool $ulsq III% pur •pt)otpogydlau lnuuapi;ai Sµturl a; uts p'q%tlyt^tsa ayt qi ajuipudmoim
'I It -uoneaol sty? .u)I qS q not st-iuSunp ayt pm: a2irl uat st xildwoi tuolflprdn pasodo.td siqi a.tagnq ) \\
„purinn?I ) Pamid„ ecro unouy
%lootuutea 1X'XIS P t -1A11) put onu3.%v 111211 In satuoa atp ,n zalduum watutmdr psodoid atp,;o uog3nnsuo)
ayl s'('!;P of aj;tsauaird to <I!,)'gIJ'' Ilamtn,) Ut)?tq1 uollnad iq?uay alpnalla a,l m srnutyl\;
;o Cusia.uu,l at}t l0 lsass puts tpaou poogIogqdpu iqi 1t) �aaumo <uadoJd ptustuaptsU p'tlilp apun .1111 ° N1
CI NV I}IA'I 1 )i JI(CONd, of ON
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
P1Ie se ote)TO on "Project Cleveland" aid help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood.!
( i Q . \./ i /1 1/ i/ ..1 //
,V-7a7a
ti ep g� 743 CedlgrW •*A /L , k.1M-1 4 t' -n7oj
43 CeS& we `Fao tMcr1 d c i71 ,jtttiz 1liS1 w . (itJMA 5` t w►�. e4r� J�zc��
\:
C].1xtJl )Lj 1If72Zf
c5o e#&a&1Mit..7t2/
t6�
6
Rev. 6/96 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
Ju L
:1'" i /1 1clDUvvt/z'�1tla�lJt'
YAlh 4 — c?!76MV A -I/
,( M O(� i,t i c ,n I L)ts" iii,
14
727a/
ii
AiZ- ? Z -7.O t
� lit 7 Z`Z01
Ar 72701
(q /�`i�/z )a 1
cre��G� C Z2 7O/
2 vj
- $76 uii4cA7J7d1
Rev. 6196 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
7i.
F
FA
,1 / (a .iP •
r
H'
Rev. 6/98 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the comer of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
t3 1111- S�l`IU�� 2o33 W CL.6V%UVJ O sT Ft%Yerevltic,4R
ARRV St►VD R, 2x33 W Ct24tLA ►D st FAYCMIL1.E. AK
—v. 4.._ n br. . Fay, evlle Afro 7 70/
C
tlaAtk
1Suc
JIR
✓f
az(J4vaA166Tbr.
.i 0 J._ !_
i S3S W. C1t,rel
Dr.
iIri,llc%c 127e!
Ui ;70/
01IP 72701
34I1 72-701
C.`
1.70
Rev. 8/98 16283
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
0
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
"PJ
1
Rev. 6/88 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the comer of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
20++ VUes1 v -D ve Fag[ekvi& AR 12101
R b1Sd1 Snl S9�nAotft /-d� efytvj/le /li�%2ib1
&.s acs n s tt Fri aw Ile 7z'o,
i.. . _ '-I
Rev, 6/98 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the comer of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project eveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
A
-1s
o.ultry 4' -
Rev. 6/98 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex ai the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to I tall Avenue. Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
('lease vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help u; preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
L VAJ N F 'WAM 4 i o.N s« —
-c e1A( AtC
Rev. 6198 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
6
No.Pa
Chi! c a C/?;,/, Al +�4,e.r J27V Ale,/, e // .n} 72-70/
t41r j_4
/yera-' '9
A
Sc JJor rN OJ>r/ $4# j) ' Rov.8196 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
reJJreSL � Ri
Rev. 6+98 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
L
�LoJ J e l_Alili.7.sa✓ /iCe/as .ic ten /91 C Santa' flee
alCQ�.r s'411,
3 J
Rev. 6198 16263.
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
PawJrnur:41R II]
Z15
'7z
x Ncr- (43 " sag Rev.6/98 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
ra
M
)$ \A. OS QcJ Pr.
w
Rev. 6196 16263
Page 1 of 2
City Clerk - Comments regarding Project Cleveland
From: "Burt H. Bluhm" <bbluhm@uark.edu>
To: "city _clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <cityclerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/4/2012 10:37 PM
Subject: Comments regarding Project Cleveland
CC: "dlorahlynn@yahoo.com" <dlorahlynn@yahoo.com>
Dear City Council,
I feel compelled to write a follow-up letter expressing my serious concerns about Project Cleveland. I am a
resident (and homeowner) on Hall Avenue, a member of the faculty of the U of A, and am raising my two young
daughters within a hundred yards or less of the proposed development. I firmly believe that Project Cleveland
will negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood, and that serious thought should be given to whether or not
this type of development is what Fayetteville needs at this time. In earlier comments to the planning committee,
I outlined some of the specific concerns and issues that I think need to be explored before Project Cleveland is
approved. My core concern is that this project is too big for this location at the present time; once it is built, it
cannot be unbuilt.
In response to some of the public comments in support of this project: let's please not obscure the issue at hand
with sweeping generalizations about urban development in Europe and other U.S. cities. I have traveled
extensively throughout the world, and it should go without saying that what works regarding residential zoning in
Berlin, Paris, Charlotte NC, or Washington, D.C, cannot be generically applied to Fayetteville, AR. Let's please not
lose sight of the issue to be discussed: whether this specific development is the right decision at this specific
place, at this specific time. "Rumors" about the future growth of student enrollment at the U of A and vague
concerns about the whether the University would even be interested in developing this particular location (or
whether the University could obtain the legal standing to do so, for that matter) are rhetorical straw men. As a
resident of Hall Avenue, I am not fundamentally opposed to development on this block, including future
development by the U of A rather than the private sector. As an employee of the U of A, frankly I trust the
University to do a better job with long-term property management than the private sector, and I do not
understand arguments that Project Cleveland is in some way better than a University housing project at the same
location. I cannot speak for all of my neighbors, but I am not personally motivated by trepidation of change; I
welcome wise development in our city, including the property in question. However, I believe that Project
Cleveland is too big for the location in question, and in light of other recently approved projects near campus, I
believe this project will contribute to a housing glut near campus that would have far-reaching and long-lasting
negative consequences for the neighborhood as well as Fayetteville as a whole.
I trust that City Council will approach this decision cautiously and will give serious consideration to the concerns
expressed by residents and homeowners who will be most immediately affected by this proposed development.
There should be no rush to develop this location: given the onslaught of comments in opposition to Project
Cleveland, and the dearth of comments in support, it seems to me that the wisest course of action would be to
halt or extensively modify this proposed development.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FCD38AAFA... 6/5/2012
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely yours,
Burt Bluhm
930 N. Hall Avenue
Fayetteville, AR
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FCD38AAFA... 6/5/2012
?(6/5I2012� City Clerk Fwd Re SUport FOR Prect Cleveland a eite1
From:
Jesse Fulcher
To:
City Clerk
Date:
6/5/2012 8:22 AM
Subject:
Fwd: Re: Support FOR Project Cleveland
>>> Justin Eichmann <rjeichmann(a�gmail.com> 6/4/2012 11:49 PM >>>
Mr. Lolley, we haven't met but since I was copied on your email I thought I
would drop you a line. I disagree with the conclusion of your email, but I
couldn't help but agree more with these sentences that you wrote:
this type of density, these walkable, transit oriented developments are
> brand new to Fayetteville. We really haven't anticipated this type of
> density at this scale, or identified the most appropriate locations for
> this density in our 2030 Plan. We should go back and consider an overlay
> district that clearly identifies precisely where we wish to see these types
> of development in the future.
You put your finger on exactly the point of the opposition to this project -
the city hasn't seen this type of density at this scale, and certainly
hasn't considered the locations (or precisely where) these type of
developments should be placed. Project Cleveland is certainly not in and
of itself offensive, but the particular location is.
Up until recently, most of the recent student housing developments have
been approved for locations with direct access to major arterials and in
locations where surrounding uses, transitions and zoning are appropriate to
its impact, use and density. Project Cleveland is comprised of 3 lots
zoned RSF-4 with RSF-4 zoned properties and uses (UHNA) directly
adjacent.... not to mention it is cornered on a local street and a collector
street which are not as suited to bear more traffic burden than is already
cast upon it by University developments.
Should this project seek a new location just a short walk northward on Hall
St. to a location on Wedington Dr. (perhaps on the parcels directly behind
Harps Grocery Store which are currently for sale) or on the northeast side
of the corner of Cleveland and Garland which is all zoned RMF-40 and are
mostly yearly student rentals, then I would agree that a development of
this nature could be an appropriate endeavor and one that I might support.
Despite all of the virtues and benefits of infill developments, planning
decisions approving such developments should not be made in a vacuum to the
location, the surrounding zoning/uses and the impact on infrastructure.
Though the Hill Street neighborhood area where you reside is zoned mostly
RMF-40, I'm sure you would agree that there are locations which are
appropriate and not appropriate for a highly dense development. For the
most part, that is our argument with Project Cleveland.
Anyway, I have copied Mr. Garner on this email to add it to the record.
Though I respectfully disagree with parts of you email, I am sincere about
my agreement with your suggestion to consider an overlay district to deal
with with these planning issues. I think you will find other kindred
spirits in our neighborhood on this very issue as well.
(6I5I2012j City Clerk - Fwd: Re: Su ort FOR Pro ecc Cleveland ' Sede 2
Regards,
Justin Eichmann
648 N. Gray St.
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Mikel Lolley <mikel.lolley@gmail.com>wrote:
> Dear City Council,
> My name is Mikel Lolley. I live at 20 S. Hill Avenue, Ward 2, where I
> have lived and invested for nearly 29 years. We are located in a
> neighborhood, opposite the campus from the proposed Project Cleveland. We
> share many of the same issues as the University Heights neighborhood.
> Fayetteville certainly has experienced phenomenal growth over the last 30
> years. Our city within the city, the University of Arkansas has also
> experienced phenomenal growth. All indications are that both,
> Fayetteville and the UofA will continue to experience radical
> transformational growth. The growth is here, whether we will it or not. We
> can affect its character, but we cannot alter this inevitability.
> And so this is where I find myself with Project Cleveland. Granted -
> this type of density, these walkable, transit oriented developments are
> brand new to Fayetteville. We really haven't anticipated this type of
> density at this scale, or identified the most appropriate locations for
> this density in our 2030 Plan. We should go back and consider an overlay
> district that clearly identifies precisely where we wish to see these types
> of development in the future.
>
> I understand the resistance to change. I understand the trepidation when
> confronted with something new and unfamiliar, such as Transit Oriented
> Development. But anyone who has traveled, will recognize this density,
> and recognize this building type. This density is thru-out Europe and
> characterizes many of our most beloved American Cities -- cities like
> Washington DC, Alexandria, Virginia, New Orleans, Charlette, North
> Carolina, Savanah, Georgia, Portland, Oregon -- cities that have managed to
> retain their walkable historic cores, and yet thru appropriate in -fill and
> greater density, add to the diversity, the vitality, and the overall
> richness of their walkable urban cores. Anyone who has traveled has
> marveled at the vitality that this diversity brings to the city.
> I am here because I believe that this project will enrich the immediate
> neighborhood and the City as a whole. I believe that Project Cleveland
> is utterly reasonable. I believe that Project Cleveland has the legal
> right to be realized as proposed. I believe that Project Cleveland is
> good for Fayetteville, good for the University of Arkansas, and even good
> for the University Heights Neighborhood. I believe in this developer. I
> trust Seth Mims. I have watched this developer visit with the neighbors,
> solicit their concerns, and modify, significantly, this proposed
[(6/5?2 — Ctt Clerk Fwd. Re Support FOR Protect Cleveland Seate 3
> development based upon those concerns.
> Seth has brought to Fayetteville a caliber of developers from out of State
> who are committed to a long-term return on their investment, and in lieu of
> development on the cheap. Why would we turn this developer, or this
> quality of development away, and wait for what? What type of development
> are we waiting for? Better than what? What is there? What is proposed?
> Supposing that this development does not get built in the short term,
> and the neighborhood decides to wait -it -out for something better? The
> University with their thirst for more student housing adjacent to campus is
> an inevitable future. I have heard rumor of a student enrollment of
> 28,000 over the next several years. The UofA will simply'take' this
> same property to build their desperately needed student housing. Would
> you rather the UofA cross Cleveland? Or, would you rather partner with
> the private sector and the City of Fayetteville and participate in the
> inevitable, like you have done with Project Cleveland? I think that to
> deny this project is short sighted. I implore the University Heights
> neighborhood to look further into the undeniable future for the inevitable
> growth in the University of Arkansas and in Fayetteville and ensure that
> this neighborhood gets the amenities that should come with this type of
> growth, things like traffic calming, added parking, better sidewalks,
> crosswalks, updated and improved infrastructure.
> Project Cleveland should 'NOT be denied. Strategic Planning has
> recommended 'FOR' it. The Planning Commission has voted 7 to 1 in favor
> of it. The City -at -large voted 'FOR' smart growth on two separate
> occasions in the 2025 Plan and the 2030 Update. I urge the City and its
> citizens to stick to the Plan. Project Cleveland goes above and beyond
> prescription and expectation as outlined in our 2030 Plan.
> We would welcome Project Cleveland into our neighborhood and maintain our
> neighborhood in private hands, where we would have much more of a say in
> what gets built, how it adds to the overall vitality of our immediate
> neighborhood, and how it gets managed and maintained over time.
> Sincerely, Mikel C Lolley
Page 1of!
City Clerk - comment on Project Cleveland
From: "Vitaly B. Brazhkin" <VBrazhkin@walton.uark.edu>
To: "city _clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/5/2012 9:29 AM
Subject: comment on Project Cleveland
CC: "Vitaly B. Brazhkin" <VBrazhkin@walton.uark.edu>
To Whom It May Concern:
I would like hereby to submit my objection to and serious concern over project Cleveland, because it does not
have a sufficient setback from the streets to ensure safety.
The proposed housing, if built, will clearly be occupied by students who are predominantly younger people
associated with immature behavior.
As an example, on a Razorback sporting event day last year a group of young people, presumably students, while
driving at full speed on Hall Ave, threw a full can of beer at my daughter who was standing in the front yard in
front of our home. Given the speed of the car, the beer can turned into a dangerous projectile. They missed
narrowly. Thanks to a witness who remembered the license plate, we called 911, and the police came to
investigate. While we decided not to file the charges in the end because my daughter was shocked but not hurt,
this case clearly shows that young people behave immaturely and dangerously, particularly on days of sporting
events, their behavior possibly affected by alcohol. If the building is built without a sufficient setback, all sorts of
stuff will be thrown out of the windows. Younger people have been known to behave particularly aggressively
towards fans of opposing teams. So there is real danger to passers-by and passing cars below. There isn't a
single multistory residence hall on campus without a sufficient setback from the street to guarantee that car
accidents due to things thrown out the window will not happen. Project Cleveland should be held to the same
standard. It must have sufficient setbacks from both Cleveland and Hall, so that eggs, beer cans and heavy trash
cannot hurt anyone when thrown out of the windows. It is unrealistic to expect younger people to behave
maturely at all times. However, it is my expectation that the city council should consider this situation and show
wisdom by requiring the developer/builder make sufficient setbacks from both streets to guarantee safety at all
times.
Sincerely,
Vitaly Brazhkin
Owner/Resident
880 N Hall Ave
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FCDD 181 FA... 6/5/2012
Page 1 of 1
City Clerk - comment #2 on Project Cleveland
From: "Vitaly B. Brazhkin" <VBrazhkin@walton.uark.edu>
To: "city _clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/5/2012 9:51 AM
Subject: comment #2 on Project Cleveland
To Whom It May Concern:
I would also like to call your attention to the necessity of a sufficient setback from the street for reasons of safety
due to falling snow from the roof so that the heavy melting snow does not fall on the sidewalk and passers-by
below.
Thanks,
Vitaly Brazhkin
file ://C :\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FCDD68AFA... 6/5/2012
Page 1 of 1
From: Nancy McCartney <nmccartn@hotmail.com>
To:<city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/5/2012 2:46 PM
Subject: Halsell & Cleveland PZDs
For all the eloquent reasons expressed by others who have written, I am not happy with either proposal, but
especially the Cleveland expansion. There is already a terrible amount of traffic there, with convoluted patterns
at the 7:45 am hour (I avoid Leverett let -out at the other end of the day) which is not good for pedestrians, car
drivers nor especially the children. Please reconsider. We've aleady lost one school child in University Heights.
Nancy McCartney
1638 West Maple
Fayetteville, AR 72701
521-6872
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FCE1BE3FA... 6/5/2012
Page 1 of 2
Lisa Branson - Fwd: [Form mail from AccessFayetteville] - cleveland and hall
development
From: City Clerk
To: Aldermen
Date: 5/29/2012 1:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: [Form mail from AccessFayetteville] - cleveland and hall development
Hello All
Additional information was added to this email and resent to webmaster.
City of Fayetteville
Office of the City Clerk
113 W. Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
479-575-8323
city clerkla,ci.favetteville.ar.us
TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (479) 521-1316
FAYETTEVILLE
>>> Webmaster 5/29/2012 11:10 AM >>>
Webmaster
www.accessfayetteville.org
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
webmaster@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
>>> <prbriney@gmail.com> 5/29/2012 10:18 AM >>>
file ://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FC4CE77FA... 5/29/2012
Page 2 of 2
From: Patrick Briney
Email: prbriney@gmail.com
To: mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
Subject: cleveland and hall development
Message:
Dear Mr. Jordan,
Regarding the Mims apartment development at Cleveland and Hall Avenue, I would like the commission to
consider very important deficiencies that already exist on the part of the city engineer's office and the planning
commission.
I live at 760 N. Cedarwood Avenue, west of Hall Avenue on a dead-end side street off of Cleveland Street. I also
own two properties at 816 and 824 Hall Avenue. When the Fayetteville engineers `improved' Hall Avenue over
nine years ago, they narrowed my driveways, took out side yard parking, posted 'no parking on street' signs,
and tilted the street to channel water runoff through my driveways and into my properties. I am the victim of
poor city planning and lack of compensation. You can find a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=gbB8KVAutuQ) of the flooding problems I face every year in spite of my nine years of verbal and written
complaint. Photos can be viewed at
https://plus aoogle com/photos/112106380521780888826/albums/5580383908610212881. My foundations are
eroding, I have had to replace two rusted motors for the heater blower, the underside of the floors are always
moist, the yards have been ruined, and access to and from the driveway requires wading through a river of
water pouring off of Hall Avenue. The water rises above the curb and rushes down not only through my
driveways but the front and back yards as well.
This has direct bearing on your consideration of the Mim's apartment complex. First, Hall Avenue has been
narrowed and parking is not allowed. Congestion is a real problem caused by the narrowness of the street as
can be seen when Leverett Elementary school parent's are dropping off or picking up children. Traffic flow
patrols are required to minimize the chaos on Hall Avenue and Cleveland.
Adding 222 new units for a potential of 444 drivers plus guest automobiles will cause perpetual congestion on a
narrow street. This is unfair to the residents and landowners on Hall Avenue and of those who use Cleveland
street. It devalues our properties and lowers the quality of living. It is especially unfair to me because I have
already been victimized by the city of Fayetteville. For nine years, the city engineers have failed to remedy the
problems I have already listed, and there has been no reimbursement for damages to my properties.
Second, the additional parking and construction of the proposed project will add to the flood problem on Hall
street. My properties are already being used illegally by the city for runoff. They have turned a deaf ear to my
plight and ignored my nine years of complaint. The You Tube video is an embarrassment to the city of
Fayetteville, yet they shamelessly delay remedy. Approval of the Mim's apartment complex will increase the
runoff onto the street and into my properties adding to the problem rather than fixing the problem.
Approval of the Mim's development is relegating the area to the campus especially from 824 Hall to the corner
of Hall and Cleveland. This is unfair to the land owners and residents who already live there. If the commission
deems that this is the best use for this area, then all property owners in the area should be given just
compensation for their properties, lost income, damages, and inconvenience. However, this does not relieve
both the automobile and pedestrian congestion on Cleveland Street that will occur between the apartment
complex and campus property. Subjecting the residents who use Cleveland Street for access is inconsiderate
and irresponsible.
Personally, I have been abused by the city of Fayetteville's use of my property for flood control at my expense,
the lost convenience of parking space, the persistent failure to remedy the flooding problems and the neglect to
reimburse me for damages in spite of nine years complaint. Adding to the persistence of the abuse by the city of
Fayetteville by allowing the Mim's development to occur as proposed is reprehensible.
Sincerely,
Pat Briney
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FC4CE77FA... 5/29/2012
Page 1 of 1
Sondra Smith - Fwd: Material for June 19th City Council Meeting- Agenda Item Project
Cleveland
From: Sondra Smith
To: Aldermen
Subject: Fwd: Material for June 19th City Council Meeting- Agenda Item Project Cleveland
CC: Branson, Lisa; dlorahlynn@yahoo.com
>>> D'lorah Hughes <dlorahlynn@yahoo.com> 6/14/2012 1:04 PM >>>
Madame Clerk,
Attached please find a second set of petitions relevant to an item on Tuesday night's City
Council agenda. The petition is signed by residents and property owners of the
neighborhood north and west of the University of Arkansas who oppose the proposed
"Project Cleveland" development. Please include this email and the attached petition as part
of the public record/City Council packet.
If you have any questions or require the original petitions, please feel free to contact me or
the Schaffers.
Thanks,
D'lorah Hughes
about:blank 6/14/2012
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Payetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
X1&
1- 53 t hN U- t— k
Try LeKiww. t` " %, l •
t' 4111 Al. SI44I 4, F G r Z?2c/
Flee. 698 163
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
Rev. 6198 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owner; of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex a' the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
kno%%m as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Flail Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
Rev. 698 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the corner of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, commonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already arc overburdened.
on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University Heights neighborhood!
R.98 16263
NO to "PROJECT CLEVELAND"
We, the undersigned residents and property owners of the neighborhood north and west of the University of
Arkansas in Fayetteville, hereby petition the City Council of the City of Fayetteville to disallow the
construction of the proposed apartment complex at the comer of Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street, conunonly
known as "Project Cleveland".
We believe this proposed apartment complex is too large and the density is too high for this location, it is
incompatible with the established single family residential neighborhood, and will bring too much additional
traffic to Hall Avenue, Cleveland Street and other neighborhood streets that already are overburdened.
Please vote NO on "Project Cleveland" and help us preserve the historic University
IQ
02 A). SO
ul.
v /49Q.
ri44, 5 0o�,h�� / rya,
!q ZD htft/ e!1 $d/ ?OoN&/se/IR
Li S[A M i-+&et 7i-1 ti LaAfcc Aa r r &ee . 727"
W 1,
k- id -1 0, Le.8 £ 7776
f 3I L\cam•\.� i+0. .l ?- bic4
� -4i $ 65o s t4 e,..•t! 71?o.
Sc'-t4 ktrs o t.1.
AR 2 ao
Rev, 6198 16263
(616/2012 City Clerk Fwd, RE Project Cleveland S_paa ized Real Estate Group _ Seite 11
From: Planning
To: City Clerk
Date: 6/6/2012 2:47 PM
Subject: Fwd: RE: Project Cleveland, Specialized Real Estate Group
Attachments: project_cleveland_supportLetter.pdf
FYI
Thank you
Cin
>>> On 6/4/2012 at 6:30 PM, in message
<CA+ibwNvH7MfaxOo0m1wMf5X 7tSu4megC6+TRjMR47SX8mYorcj mail.amail.com>, Michael Ward
<draw.wardCa�omail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members,
Please accept the attached letter in support of Project Cleveland, the development by Specialized Real
Estate. Thank you.
Best,
Michael Ward
Master of Urban Planning, 2012
University of Washington
RE: Project Cleveland, Specialized Real Estate Group
4 June 2012
To Fayetteville City Council Members
The purpose of this letter is to support Project Cleveland and the proposal for a new
planned zoning district. I am a Fayetteville native, an alumnus of the University of
Arkansas and a former student of Leverett Elementary School. I intimately know the City
of Fayetteville.
I have just completed a Master of Urban Planning from the University of Washington in
Seattle. I am now planning to move back to Fayetteville this July so that I can offer my
services to my home community. I support this project because it embodies many of
the crucial elements of smart urban growth that I have recently learned and that the
cities of Seattle and Portland are currently applying.
The Charter of the New Urbanism states:
We advocate the restructuring of public policy and development practices to
support the following principles: neighborhoods should be diverse in use and
population; communities should be designed for the pedestrian and transit as
well as the car; cities and towns should be shaped by physically defined and
universally accessible public spaces and community institutions; urban places
should be framed by architecture and landscape design that celebrate local
history, climate, ecology, and building practice. (Congress for the New Urbanism)
The proposed planned zoning district for Project Cleveland is precisely the type of
"restructuring of policy and development practices" that the Congress for the New
Urbanism calls for. It will benefit the City of Fayetteville by enhancing community
amenities, encouraging multiple modes of transit, and applying development practices
that conserve energy and manage the ecological challenges of storm water.
Furthermore, its adherence to methods of Transit Oriented Development represent the
forward thinking necessary to plan for population growth, dense walkable
neighborhoods, and, of course, effective public transit systems.
If Fayetteville hopes to realize its goals of urban sustainability, it must establish strategies
for how and where to concentrate density as the population grows. Most of the areas
adjacent to the University of Arkansas are ideal for increasing housing densities. The
University's own goals of increasing the student body bolster the argument that the
city's growth should be coordinated with the University. Therefore, I believe that the
creation of a Campus Edge Zoning District exemplifies the kind of flexible and intelligent
public policy and development practices that the Congress for the New Urbanism
hopes to see.
The Campus Edge Zoning District will focus housing for students, as well as others, close
to the University. This concentration is necessary for sustainable development practices
because it encourages students to live close to campus, eliminating their need to
commute and diminishing their need for a car altogether. Furthermore, concentrating
population growth will hinder suburban sprawl —a development practice that
consumes open fields, destroys natural ecologies, and stretches the municipality's
ability to provide and maintain infrastructure.
RE: Project Cleveland, Specialized Real Estate Group
4 June 2012
I support the Campus Edge Zoning District not only for Project Cleveland, specifically,
but for much of the area adjacent to the University. This type of zoning district,
consisting of multifamily housing and a mix of retail and commercial uses, will
encourage dense, walkable, and vibrant neighborhoods that enhance community
amenities and increase tax revenues for the city.
I recommend that the Campus Edge Zoning District be adopted for Project Cleveland
to serve as precedent for the future of smart growth in Fayetteville. I support both the
zoning district and the project itself.
Sincerely,
Michael K. Ward
Master of Urban Planning, 2012
University of Washington
To: City of Fayetteville Mayor and City Council
Fm: David L. Williams, 547 Gray Avenue, Fayetteville 72701
Re: Summary of Concerns with Project Cleveland
June 11, 2012
Dear Mayor and Council Members
Thank you for your careful attention and city staWs diligent work related to Project Cleveland. I have
followed the project closely, read the online information and communications and have appreciated all
city council, committee and staff work and constructive neighborhood feedback as well as the
thoughtful and considerate demeanor and communications from the developer throughout its course.
Here is my summary feedback in opposition to the project for your consideration.
Scale. The building's size and number of occupants overwhelm the residential neighborhood and are a
threat to long-term neighborhood integrity. Lots of comments address this concern.
Traffic. Anticipated traffic is a safety and congestion threat. The traffic studies do not seem to reflect
the considerable current experiences of neighbors and do not seem to me to be representative of the
usual volume and current congestion problems so ably communicated by area residents. It looks to me
like the first study was done a few days before spring break and the second during two university dead
days which make me suspect that is the source of under representation of current normal and projected
traffic and safety problems
Possible water and sewer system overload upstream and downstream. From my perspective, the
proposed water & sewer infrastructure seems to fit the project site. However, I think the potential
overload impact on our area's current upstream and downstream capacities is unclear and, to my
knowledge, unaddressed. We already have problems with low water pressure in the area and have had
some serious problems with sewer system flooding in parts of our University Heights area during
inclement weather. I suspect the current system may be strained even with future small parcel infill,
and also wonder if this large scale development will cause considerable problems and future costs. I
haven't seen any reports that address the impact of infrastructure of this scale on the larger area water
and sewer infrastructure but hope this is addressed in any big picture infill considerations now and in
the future.
Possible neighborhood diversity loss. Part of what makes our University Heights neighborhood unique
is our international families and their presence in Leverett school. It is not clear what impact proposed
rents will have on the displacement of international families. Even notice to vacate will create a
hardship for some, if not all, the families due to our city-wide problems of low access to affordable
housing. Any loss of them will be significant loss to the neighborhood, school, university and city. This
possibility seems inconsistent with our long-term goals of increased affordable housing and inconsistent
with our values for increased diversity and inclusion .
Wrong Use of a good PDZ planning tool. I think the PDZ is a great planning tool and also think that
careful development of infill is a top priority for our city. My perspective is that a PDZ should
complement and add to, not threaten sustaining neighborhood uniqueness, contribute to long-term
goals of neighborhood preservation (especially in a neighborhood that has such historic value as ours),
not overstrain traffic, water and sewer infrastructure and contribute to affordable housing and diversity
goals. My opinion is that this project is more of a hindrance than a help to the University Heights and
surrounding areas. It needs more acreage and more distance from our area to become a plus for the
city and surrounding neighborhoods.
Cart before the horse problem. Finally, I suggest that a moratorium on any PDZ or other proposed
development in the proximity of the university/neighborhood overlaps prior to the development of a
city/university overlay covenant to guide overall development. We need to work together to find
ways that will foster long-term preservation of this historic neighborhood as well as meet needs for
university expansion, address infill infrastructure impact, encourage diversity and inclusion and add
affordable housing in a coordinated and comprehensive way. To do this project or any others before
facilitating a comprehensive approach to this area's development seems like a classic example of
"putting the cart before the horse." Fortunately, we have the leadership and expertise in the city, the
university and the neighborhood residents to make these kinds of future -shaping agreements and keep
them.
For all these reasons, I encourage you to vote no on Project Cleveland and move quickly on
university/city formulation of a shared developmental process that will shape our area's future for the
better for all considered.
Thank you again for your thoughtful and lengthy consideration of this matter.
David L. Williams
Page 1 of I
Lisa Branson - Fwd: My opinion re Housing Project Hall and Cleveland
From:
City Clerk
To:
Aldermen
Date:
6/14/2012 6:46 PM
Subject: Fwd: My opinion re Housing Project Hall and Cleveland
CC: Branson, Lisa; Garner, Andrew; Mims, Seth
>>> <Herbholcomb@aol.com> 6/14/2012 5:27 PM >>>
As a former Fayetteville public school educator and administrator, I have serious reservations about the
proposed housing project at Hall and Cleveland Streets. In my professional judgement, such a large group of
university -age students living off -campus in an unsupervised setting would make extremely poor neighbors to
elementary school students attending school. I am also of the opinion that residents in this type of housing and
setting would make poor neighbors in the University Heights neighborhood in which I reside. I join my daughters
and neighbors to urge you, the Fayetteville City Council members, to veto this project.
Sincerely,
Henrietta K. Holcomb
Margaret Ann Holcomb
Elizabeth Jo Heiliger
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FDA318CFA... 6/15/2012
Page 1 of 1
Sondra Smith - Resident of Ward 4 Fayetteville: FOR Project Cleveland
From: Joshua Foliart <jcfoliart@gmail.com>
To: <ward4_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <sarahelainelewis@gmail.com>
Date: 6/18/2012 1:55 PM
Subject: Resident of Ward 4 Fayetteville: FOR Project Cleveland
CC: <ward1_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <wardI_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<ward2_posl@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <citycouncil@matthewpetty.org>,
<ward3_post@ei.fayetteville.ar.us>, <ward3 jos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
As a citizen of Fayetteville I stand behind the 2030 plan. This plan was brought forth as a road map to guide Fayetteville down the path to
becoming a community that is positioned for long time success. This plan has been backed and invested in by a city of 73,580 citizens. Project
Cleveland fits the bill of the 2030 plan and we support it.
The main anchor of our great city is the University of Arkansas. Over the past few years the University has seen unprecedented growth; growth
that has taken our city by storm. This growth has done wonders for our city. It has put us on the map as a legitimate tier one school that is
attracting attention from around the country. Our 2030 plan was put into place to serve as our guide so that when the pains of growth begin to
cloud our judgment we still have a map to follow. As elected representatives of our entire city it is critical that the voice of the entire city be taken
into account when it comes to voting on such important projects as Project Cleveland.
Ward 4 has been painted as being staunchly against Project Cleveland; however, the entire population of the Ward needs to be heard. Ward 4
stretches across Interstate 540, encompassing most of West Fayetteville. With the growth that has occurred at the University over the past few
years, many students have found themselves without a place to live on campus. This is forcing students to take up residence where they can and
that is often in our neighborhoods, living in single family homes. These students are forced to drive to campus multiple times per day, pay for
overcrowded parking, and they clog our streets with unnecessary traffic congestion. As citizens of Fayetteville, we must do the responsible thing
and provide housing for students that is adjacent to campus.
As a citizen of Ward 4 lam in support of Project Cleveland and I believe it's adherence the the Fayetteville 2030 Plan.
Sincerely,
Josh Foliart
Associate Pastor
www.ChristianLifeCathedral.com
file:///C:/Users/ssmith/AppData/Local/Temp/XPgrpwise/4FDF3334FAYETTEVILLECIT... 6/18/2012
Page 1 of I
City Clerk - Project Cleveland
From: "Barbara Fraleigh" <barbara@secureusinc.com>
To: <city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/18/2012 3:05 PM
Subject: Project Cleveland
Dear Mayor Jordan and the Fayetteville City Council,
This letter is to request that you deny the proposed student housing development at Cleveland and
Hall, currently being referred to as "Project Cleveland".
Having lived in the University Heights neighborhood since 1988, I feel that this type of development is
not compatible with the existing neighborhood. The population density of the project, it's enormous
structural size and the increased traffic that will result from the additional student residents are just too
much for this property to effectively accommodate.
Additionally, the location immediately across the street from Leverett Elementary School seems to be a
poor choice. This is a neighborhood school, and the increase in traffic will potentially increase the
danger to the school children, parents and crossing guards that regularly walk to school and tend to the
safety of the intersections. The playground area could also become an area of use by the proposed
student residents, as there is very little green space available within the planned development.
Please deny this project. We work hard to maintain a wonderful residential neighborhood adjacent to
the University. Please do not let the nature of our neighborhood be permanently changed by this
development.
Respectfully,
Barbara Fraleigh
1624 W. Halsell Road
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FDF43A7FA... 6/18/2012
(6/19%2012 City Clerk Fwd: Letter'of Sup ort for Project Cleveland Seite.
From: Jesse Fulcher
To: City Clerk
Date: 6/18/2012 4:57 PM
Subject: Fwd: Letter of Support for Project Cleveland
Attachments: City of Fayetteville Planning Commissioners.pdf
FYI.
>>> "Jeff Huber" <jeffrey.e.huberAn,gmail.com> 6/18/2012 4:36 PM >>>
Dear Fayetteville City Council and Planning Commissioners,
I would like to offer my support to the Project Cleveland development.
Please see attached letter.
Best regards,
Jeff Huber, Ward 4, 3691 Tower Circle
Dear Fayetteville City Council and Planning Commissioners,
I would like to offer my support to the Project Cleveland development because I believe it meets the
goals of the City Plan 2025 and the City Plan 2030.
I recently read in a report from the National Center for Neighborhood Technology that in 2000 a typical
Northwest Arkansas household spent 29% of its annual income on transportation, far above the national
average of 19%. Living in the suburbs I know all too well why.
I moved to Fayetteville in 2005 and chose to live downtown near my office, the university and the
entertainment district. I moved into a flat off Center Street and became very comfortable walking
everywhere. Best of all, I was free of the automobile except for on very few occasions. Expecting an
expanding family, my wife and I made the drastic decision to find a larger space for us to live. Once we
made the decision to buy we found that we were priced out of the downtown market. We moved to the
suburbs. I now use my car every day so the statistic above does not surprise me. As an architect and
urban designer I cringed at the thought of living in the suburbs, but found solace in the idea that the
approved City Plan 2025 and City Plan 2030 would soon give me an affordable downtown living option.
Unfortunately, I am still waiting because there is a "missing middle" density of urban housing available
on the market in Fayetteville to young professionals and their growing families.
Since Fayetteville is essentially going to produce another Fayetteville by 2030 —the population is
estimated to be 125,000 —how do we capture the next twenty years of growth in a sustainable manner?
Do we keep offering a suburban model that will put greater pressure on the fringes of the city? Or can
urban infill ease that pressure? As per the city's goal of incenting mixed -use infill development, Project
Cleveland as designed will certainly do just that through its articulation of housing types, massing, and
program mix. The project will reward pedestrian activity on surrounding streets while accommodating
car storage with a housing -lined parking deck. It is my hope that the project will prove to be successful
and deliver on its promises to reduce car dependence and promote greater pedestrianism because it's
my desire to live in affordable downtown housing. If we do not encourage developers to provide these
types of projects and others that address more varied densities and lifestyle options, infill development
may never happen smartly in Fayetteville.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Huber, Ward 4, 3691 Tower Circle
Page 1 of 1
City Clerk - I SUPPORT PROJECT CLEVELAND
From: Michael Jordan <mjordan4343@gmail.com>
To: <sarahelainelewis@gmail.com>, <ward4_pos@ci.fayettevi11e.ar.us>
Date: 6/19/2012 9:16 AM
Subject: I SUPPORT PROJECT CLEVELAND
CC: <ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,<wardl_posl@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<wardl_pos2@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,<ward2_posl@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<citycouncil@matthewpetty.org>, <ward3_pos@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<ward3_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>, <mayor@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
<cityelerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Good morning, Mayor and Aldermen,
I am writing this morning as a resident of Ward 4 in support of Project Cleveland.
As a resident and owner of two separate homes in Ward 4 spanning the past 6 plus years, I have seen
many changes in our neighborhoods. Most have been great, including the widening of Mount Comfort
Road and the completion of Rupple Road. Some of the more recent changes have not been so easy for us
to adjust to, like the growing population of college students renting homes in our area.
With the growth of the University of Arkansas, I understand the needs of college students wanting to
find quality affordable housing off campus, but the movement west has caused additional difficulties to
those of us with families in the area. The additional population moving into our neighborhoods has
increased the traffic in our area considerably with students going back and forth to classes throughout
the day. I firmly believe that Project Cleveland and other projects like it that are near the campus will
help alleviate this traffic congestion. With quality housing near campus, students will be able to walk or
bike to class rather than spend the gas and parking money.
As a citizen of Ward 4,1 am in support of Project Cleveland and it's adherence to the Fayetteville 2030
Plan.
Michael Jordan
3421 W Bayham Place
Fayetteville, AR
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FE04375FA... 6/19/2012
! (6/19/2012) Ci Clerk - Ma in Su ort of " No to Pro ect Cleveland"Petition Seite 1
From: D'lorah Hughes <dlorahlynn@yahoo.com>
To: "ward4_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <ward4_post@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>,
CC: "city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us" <city_clerk@ci.fayetteville.ar.us>
Date: 6/19/2012 10:45 AM
Subject: Map in Support of "No to Project Cleveland" Petition
Attachments: NO to Project Cleveland Map.pdf
Hello all,
Attached please find a map reflecting the signatures of those property owners/neighbors who have signed
the NO to Project Cleveland petition as of June 17th. We would ask that this map be made a part of the
public record.
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
D'lorah Hughes
Properties with signatures
"NO" to Project Cleveland
❑" Project Cleveland site
I Leverett Elementary
L_J
r— I University of Arkansas
L _ J property
$�natnrec nat rellected on man'
100 N. Sang
48 N. Sang
16 N. Sang
24 S. Hartman
1875 Haskell Heights
1928 Haskell Heights
31 S. Palmer
235 N. Palmer
"NO" TO PROJECT CLEVELAND
Page 1 of 1
Lisa Branson - Fwd: Letter regarding Project Cleveland
From:
Sondra Smith
To:
Aldermen
Date:
6/19/2012 2:16 PM
Subject: Fwd: Letter regarding Project Cleveland
CC: Garner, Andrew; Mims, Seth; Pate, Jeremy
Attachments: Letter in support of Project Cleveland, 6-19-2012.pdf; Sondra Smith.vcf
Sondra E. Smith CAMC, CMC
City Clerk Treasurer
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(479) 575-8323
ssmith@ci.fayetteville.ar.us
TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf): (479) 521-1316
FAY
IN
FAYETTEVILLE
>>> Steven Dixon steven.d.dixon@gmail.com> 6/19/2012 10:52 AM >>
Dear Alderman Adams & Lewis,
Please see the attached letter indicating my support of Project Cleveland.
Best Regards,
Steven D. Dixon II, Ward 4, 1346 N. Shetland Dr.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\lbranson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4FE089A9FA... 6/19/2012
19 June 2012
Dear Alderman Adams & Lewis,
As a citizen of Fayetteville and a resident living in Ward 4, I would like to make it known
that I stand behind the city's 2030 plan. This plan was brought forth as a road map to
guide Fayetteville down the path to becoming a community that is positioned for long-
term, sustainable success. This plan has been backed and invested in by a city of 73,580
citizens. Project Cleveland fits the bill of the 2030 plan and I personally support it.
The anchor of our city is the University of Arkansas, and over the past few years the
University has seen unprecedented growth; growth that has taken our city by storm. This
growth has done wonders for our city. It has put us on the map as a legitimate tier one
school that is attracting attention from around the country. Our 2030 plan was put into
place to serve as our guide so that when the pains of growth begin to overwhelm us and
cloud our judgment we still have a map to follow. As elected representatives of our
entire city it is critical that the voice of the entire city be taken into account when it
comes to voting on such important projects as Project Cleveland.
Ward 4 has been painted as being staunchly against Project Cleveland; however, the
entire population of the Ward needs to be heard. Ward 4 stretches across Interstate 540,
encompassing most of West Fayetteville which is where I live. With the growth that has
occurred at the University over the past few years, many students have found themselves
without a place to live on campus. This is forcing students to take up residence where
they can and that is often in our neighborhoods, living in single family homes. This has
happened in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods over a mile west of 540.
These students are forced to drive to campus multiple times per day and pay for
overcrowded parking. This also causes unnecessary traffic congestion and street side
parking in our neighborhoods, which is in direct conflict with why families (especially
with children) choose to live in single family residence neighborhoods a short but safe
distance from campus life. As citizens of Fayetteville, we must do the responsible thing
and provide housing for students that is adjacent to campus. This is not only the best
solution for the city but also the university.
As a citizen of Ward 41 am in support of Project Cleveland and it's adherence to the
Fayetteville 2030 Plan.
Respectfully,
Steven D. Dixon II, Ward 4, 1346 N. Shetland Dr.
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 14, 2012
Planning Commission
May 14, 2012
Page 14 of 16
R-PZD 12-4079: Residential Planned Zoning District (N.W. CORNER OF W. CLEVELAND ST. &
HALL AVE/PROJECT CLEVELAND, 443): Submitted by MCCLELLAND CONSULTING
ENGINEERS, INC. for property located at the NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST CLEVELAND STREET
AND HALL AVENUE. The property is zoned RSF-4, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, 4 UNITS PER
ACRE and RMF-40, RESIDENTIAL MULTI FAMILY, 40 UNITS PER ACRE, and contains approximately
2.71 acres. The request is for zoning, land use and large scale development approval for a Residential Planned
Zoning District with 122 multi -family dwellings.
Jesse Fulcher, current planner, read the staff report.
Seth Mims, applicant, stated that they were trying to create a walkable, urban development, designed to meet
the goals of City Plan 2030. The project was aimed at collegiate housing for university workers and students.
Most of the residents will walk or bike due to the proximity to campus, and due to the cost to park in another
location on campus. The project has been modified greatly since the first submittal, and we have added in a
pocket park and tree preservation areas that will be open to the public. We will use low impact development
standards in the landscaped areas. The second traffic study that was just completed confirmed the findings of
the first study. We will be installing 10' cross -walks at the intersections and included lights in the cross -walks
for added visibility. We feel that this project provides an appropriate transition between the university and the
neighborhood. The university is growing and new housing needs to be provided. This will also get students out
of the existing neighborhoods, and reduce carbon emissions by reducing vehicle trips from those
neighborhoods. The project will be LEED certified and will be safe housing, with secure parking in a
traditional town form.
Marty Matlock, neighbor, commended the developers for working with the community, but there are three
main concerns; 1) safety at the street intersections with so many elementary students and existing problems
with Cleveland Street; 2) the scale of the building is too much, there is already a transition provided by the
existing apartment complex; and 3) they aren't providing an appropriate transition between land uses.
Kenneth Garner, neighbor, stated that he owns 6 acres behind the houses on Hall Avenue. The addition of
this development to the housing that will be provided in Reid and Hotz Halls when they are converted back
into student housing, will ruin my quality of life.
Maria Williams, neighbor, stated that more student housing isn't needed, and that there is already a transition
provided by the existing apartment complex. Students won't have to drive to school, but they will drive to
other locations.
Janet McCullum, neighbor, stated that she doesn't see how raised intersections will help; they don't work on
Block Street. How will emergency responders address this much density. There are only 421 parking spaces for
450 beds. On street parking shouldn't be allowed and overflow parking will end up on the elementary school
property. There will also be more wrecks at Hall and Wedington, because you can't see west very well.
Susan Gardner, neighbor, stated that she was opposed to the development; concerned with safety of
pedestrians and smokers from campus. The 450 students that will live in development will create too much
traffic and the proposed street improvements will not help.
Commissioner Chesser asked about the bedroom count per unit.
Mims stated that there will be a mixture of bedroom counts.
Planning Commission
May 14, 2012
Page 15 of 16
Commission Chesser asked if the traffic study looked at the times of trips.
Mims stated that the study did evaluate times throughout the day, including peak AM, peak school PM and
peak PM times.
Fulcher clarified where the level of service was being reduced.
Commission Chesser stated that he lives in the neighborhood and will be walking a child to the elementary
school as well. The on street parking will increase safety for pedestrians and reduce vehicular speeds, Supports
the building design.
Commissioner Honchell asked about the classification of Razorback Road.
Chris Brown, City Engineer, stated that it is state HWY 112 up to Maple Street, and is a local street from
there to Cleveland.
Commission Honchell noted that it was a nice project and complimentary to future expansion in the area
Commissioner Winston asked about residents using the school property to park.
Fulcher stated that the school was private property.
Commission Winston asked about the amount of parking spaces.
Mims described the parking spaces, scooter and bike spaces that will be provided
Fulcher read over the parking requirements for multi -family development and stated that this proposal was
well within code requirements.
Commission Winston stated that the project was appropriate, with increase density around the university, and
that the street improvements will help with existing and projected traffic conditions.
Commission Chesser discussed how the increased density, on -street parking, and street improvements will
improve safety and reduce speeds.
Commission Cook stated that the pedestrian and street improvements were good, and the climbing lane will
be a benefit. The changes to the building height and size are an improvement. The existing zoning of the site is
odd in this location. Hopefully, future multi -family development will not extend further beyond this site. The
proposal is consistent with the future land use plan.
Motion:
Commissioner Honchell made a motion to forward R-PZD 12-4079 to the City Council with a
recommendation for approval fmding in favor of recommendations 1, 2, and 3, and all other conditions.
Commissioner Hoskins seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7-1-0
(Commissioner Pennington voting 'no' and Commission Cabe absent).
Project
planned zoning district application
MAY 17, 2012
DEVELOPER
ec -al mzect
REAL ESTATE GROUP
1200 SHIPLEY ST.
PO BOX 33
SPRINGDALE, AR 72764
479.927.003
REPRESENTATIVE
Studio II
mCEND
CONSUL NG
� ENGINEERS, INC.
b.
a. current ownership information. 05
b. project summary. 06
c general project concept.
1. street + lot layout.
08
2 site plan showing proposed
08
improvements.
3 buffer areas.
08
4. tree preservation areas
08
5 storm water detention areas + drainage.
08
6 undisturbed natural areas
08
7 existing proposed utility connections +
08
extensions.
8. development + architectural design
08
standards
9. building elevations,
08
d. proposed development phasing + time frame.
17
e. proposed planning areas (PA).
18
f. proposed zoning + development standards.
21
g. zoning comparison + analysis of
22
site characteristics,
h. recreational facilities, open space + accesses.
26
i. reason for requesting zoning change.
26
j. relationship to existing + surrounding properties.
29
k. compliance with the fayetteville city plan 2030.
37
I. traffic study.
38
m. impacts on city services.
42
n. statement of commitments.
1 dedication
42
2 on or off site improvements.
42
3. natural resources + environmentally
42
sensitive areas
4 project phasing restrictions
43
5 fire + police protection
43
6 other commitments imposed by the city.
43
7 parks, trails + open space commitments
43
8. proposed preliminary building elevations.
43
o. conceptual description of development standards,
conditions+ review guidelines.
1 screening + landscaping.
2 traffio i circulation.
3 parking standards
4 perimeter treatment.
5 sidewalks
6 streetlights
7. water,
8 sewer.
9 streets + drainage
10 construction of nonresidential facilities
11 tree preservation
12 architectural design standards
13 proposed signage (type and size)
14 view protection
15 revocations.
16 covenants, trusts + homeowner
associations
p. how the proposal tits with the intent/purpose of the
planned zoning district.
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
47
protect cleveland PZD 12-4079 _ page 03
Property 1: Fadil Revved Trusts the current property
owner and there is a pending sale of the property to
Specialized Real Estate Group
2025 Creekview #B
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Property 2: Linda Berry Trust 1 is the current property
owner and there is a pending sale of the property to
Specialized Real Estate Group
PO Box 565
Johnson, AR 72741
Property 3: Charles + Marianne Baxter are the current
property owners and there is a pending sale of the
propertyto Specialized Real Estate Group
805N Hall Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701
map of ownership
El)
project Cleveland. PZD 124079 _page 05
The subject property is located on the northwest
corner of Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue, address
1220 West Cleveland Street. It contains 2.71 acres
with 5 individual lots currently owned by three differ-
ent owners with a pending sale to Specialized Real
Estate Group.
The property to the west is zoned RMF-24, the
property to the north is zoned RSF-4, the property to
the east is zoned RSF-4 with an adjacent P-1 zone
(Leverett Elementary School). and the property to the
south is zoned P-1 (University of Arkansas Campus)
local zoning map E
K
walkscore: 75 Very Walkable
www.walkscore.com
This proposed Planned Zoning Development seeks
to identify, prioritize, and appropriately remedy a rec-
ognizable zoning gap within the thoughtful and pro-
gressive zoning districts within the City of Fayetteville
Along the University of Arkansas edges and corridors
there are significant areas of scale and use transitions
that could ultimately result in more positive transacts
with the introduction of a new planned zoning district
that is outlined within this document: Campus Edge
Zoning District
The proposed district allows for the required density
to make development practical and viable combined
with architectural scale transitions that are uniquely
and appropriately addressed based on the site con-
straints and general context within the fabric of the
city. These goals are achieved by creating a zoning
district that is balanced by utilizing an existing zoning
district, Downtown General, and eliminating inappro-
priate commercial uses while increasing the height
limit along the institutional edges of the property. This
allows for a better transition within the immediate
context around the University of Arkansas Design
standards will adhere to the same qualities that
are mandated in the City of Fayetteville Downtown
Design Overlay District, further expanding the overall
aesthetic and material quality further into the built
environment of our city.
Ultimately, this project will reinforce and expand the
goals of the Fayetteville 2030 plan, provide attain-
able, safe, modern living and amenities, and become
another sustainable siteluilding example by meeting
a minimum of I_EE. D Silver certification, Furthermore,
this project will reduce commuting traffic and city
infrastructure expansion by avoiding typical sprawl
development in favor of dense, walkable infill. All of
these attributes are combined to provide a devel-
opment that fulfills the growing need for attainable
multifamily housing in the City of Fayetteville.
our developmental philosophies
rmultlfamily options that encourage walking
and are on established transit routes are
better than sprawl
good development adhering to good de-
sign standards is a better option for the
neighborhood than what could be built un-
der current zoning by right
'sustainability' is not just a buzz word when
good basic site and building design prin-
I II b i
p I I I
impact development site strategies and the
track record of this development team sup-
ports this stance
project cleveland PZD 12-4079 _page06
GIJ G9veIncrne,1la{ a!riDues
Pn?Are ccri nir'4 laid
(pt rXmc g:- agP I1,cl - der'O'� srnell se r•o s y' wlj
(b0s vales, alnaee^s. Unie:yrQ JJcr ace:atr.
r •�s on
uti�nler. aaiacers Uarc �. es)
Kwe any ! ow, g rely mmswnp'.nr'
� •:Jd erd (Jelbn�J ypr: E, r'SE 0u:Uh;b'.�le lamil7 re�huo-'h;x:us
(ar :Qu1Ury' II'f'19.E.ctt tear a oss1-ustee'1> 9-2 U OI A,
•.c139ru }/ AIr!g sale Sui[ln:I;boL,s!'a
(sO-Jse a; (:Ii Iu i :fP. :nirkd+g grvage, aua, eflI's a •.r
srre erne ides)
ore are, resoec'Jog !a'J!'ICnaI Levi
r$YT:ps, 1•JI Un sidewalke'Niel'ec ,'y Per S! aCC and IU'•Vu"
ewlCirg ruq!lss ac:nce=:'4 elyR 9Jnr,ly rc.•:esJ
we a'e s:Iean:u'c LarsOuc^ r<E Gs.!vet n'
area wring map. E\
project cleveland PZD 12-4079 _page 07
b
1. street+ lot layout.
There is a single lot type in Project Cleveland consist-
ing of multifamily units along all street fronts with a
parking garage wrapped by residential building and
an interior courtyard This project potentially could
house a neighborhood coffee shop, small market or
sidewalk cafe on the ground floor near the courtyard
entrance on Hall Avenue that would primarily serve
the residents of this property, the neighborhood and
adjacent University of Arkansas dormitories.
Other tenant clubhouse/amenities are proposed for
the interior of the building, near the east side. These
amenities would provide indoor fitness, gathering,
and lounge spaces along with an exterior pool and
terrace
Access to the parking garage is from the east on Hall
Avenue Fire lanes will be on two sides: south and
east.
2 site plan showing proposed improvements
The site plan illustrates the disposition of the building
on the site and shows the location of new sidewalks,
trees, and other improvements Please refer to the
Civil plats for additional improvements information
Sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water lines will all be
built and deeded to the City of Fayetteville, along with
all necessary right-of-ways
3. buffer areas
There are no additional provided buffer areas on the
site outside of what is required to meet the provisions
of the Unified Development Code.
4 tree preservation areas
Trees located on the wesUsouthwest corner and
northwest corner of the project site will be protected
and preserved according to Title XV of the Unified
Development Code, Chapter 167: Tree Preservation
and Protection, as shown on tree preservation draw-
ings
No trees located on adjacent properties will be
removed
5 storm water detention areas + drainage
The development will not increase the amount of
storm runoff from the site to the adjacent properties
more than currently exists Runoff on the site will be
detained underground in the courtyard area The run-
off will be released at a rate such that the peak runoff
is not increased due to the development The runoff
will discharge into existing storm drainage along Hall
Avenue
6 undisturbed natural areas.
There are no undisturbed natural areas on site
7. existing + proposed utility connections
and extensions
Approximately 312 LF of the existing 6" waterline
running west from the intersection of Cleveland Street
and Hall Avenue will need to be upgraded to an 8"
waterline Additionally, approximately 460 LF of exist-
ing 6" waterline running northward from the intersec-
tion of Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue would need
to be upgraded to a 12" waterline
The existing 6' sanitary sewer line that runs north/
south on Hall Avenue will need to be upgraded to an
8" sanitary sewer line This upgrade would need to
occur from the intersection of Wedington Drive. south
to Project Cleveland's northeast property corner (ap-
prox 915 LF).
8 development + architectural design standards.
This multi -family development is currently designed
for 122 units, 450 beds
The project adopts a modern aesthetic appropriate
to its scale and location within the city. Clean lines,
clearly defined volumes, and precise arrange-
ment of the elements relative to local topographic
conditions of the site characterize the architectural
design
Development and Architectural Standards are pro-
vided in the Zoning Criteria for the Planning Area
9. building elevations
See proposed building elevations + perspective
views on pages 10-14.
project Cleveland PZD 12-4079 - page 08
bioswalehaingarden
tree preservalion
A' evn
existing concrete
retaining wall to remain
green screen wall al parking
garage facade
theta two
Hit
tree preseivalico garden
tw•nesnernzareele ml
palklg pa'@9a
10raised pedestrian
crosswalk
pocket park
terraced courtyard entrance
new trees in courtyard
walk -op apartments with
sloops along hall avenue
B' sidewalk with street frees
pool and courtyard
coffee shop
raised pedestrian walk
(Ireltc calnnng dewce)
ground keel lobby
street trees
raingarden
parking garage entry
trash pick-up staging
raingarden
landscaped light . air well
. sahaaet entry
Iprfeiy elrytre et
raii,ga bun paallel `shared Lvarttf f _ ! I.
pa -kind W' 9 - bike lane mkanno
site plan
maple hill dorms
project clevelantl PZ012-4079 _page09
material options:
gray brick
rmwt ?!wr•,s
nm yan•an
pi-' y Ftia1W crfaI:C
south elevation
lxx r
{4. Y
.G:G1
sG: T
public access pocket park
large rain gardenrbiosvale -
east elevation
gray +white stucco rainscreen panel system options: cedar siding architectural concrete green screen
composite metal• terracotta panel, cement fiberboard panel
project Cleveland PZD 12-4079 - page 10
1495-U p_
i 4U8]
a8 u e6 g
:e a as ee {y�1
t •T�, Iu9e ran9ar0ervDimwale
north elevahen
west elevation
projectcleveland PZ012-4079 _page 11
'these views are in -process perspectives, subject to change
view looking south along hall project de/el-no PZD 12-4079 _page 12
'these views are m -process perspectives, subject to change.
view looking west from the intersection of cleveland and hall project cle,eland PZD 124079 - page 13
'these views are in -process perspectives, subject to change
view looking northeast along cleveland street project cleveland PZD 12-4079 _page 14
Y�
- --
,t - a -
Y
•
` 1l.
y
Ul 's
axon view from the northeast project clevelantl PZD 12 40(9 _ page 16
Since this is essentially a single -building proposal,
this project will consist of one phase. The project will
be constructed in totality through the estimated time
frame of the proposal All permits necesgary to begin
construction shall be obtained within one -and -a -half
years from the date of city council approval of the
PZD A final certificate of occupancy shall be ob-
tained within three -and -a -half years from the building
permit approval.
PZD.
DESIGN PHASE.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
ALL PERMITS OBTAINED
WITHIN 1-1/2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PZD
phasing + time frame diagram
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE
082014
PZD EXPIRES J
3-1/2 YEARS AFTER
BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL
project clwelard PZD 12-4079 _page 17
N
There will be only one planning area proposed in this
PZD: PA.l: Campus Edge
PA 1: CAMPUS EDGE
PERMITTED USES
unit I city-wide uses by right
unit 8: single-family dwellings
unit 9: two-family dwellings
unit 10 three-family dwellings
unit 26: multi -family dwellings
CONDITIONAL USES
unit 4: cultural + recreational facilities
unit 12: limited business
unit 13: eating places
unit 15: neighborhood shopping goods
unit 40: sidewalk cafes
DENSITY
none
LOT WIDTH MINIMUM
dwelling (all unit lypes) la ft
LOT AREA MINIMUM
none
LAND AREA PER DWELLING UNIT
Na
REQUIRED SETBACKS (see diagram on page 19]
front build -to zone from front property line 1025
side 10'
rear 0
MINIMUM BUILDABLE STREET FRONTAGE
50% of IN witllh
HEIGHT REGULATIONS [see diagram on page 191
6011 maximum
LANDSCAPING
In accordance with the City of Fayellemlle Unified Development Code
II
PARKING
In accordance with the City of Fayetteville Unified Development
Code
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
All structures shall be designed and constructed to comply will the
architectural design standards of the PA -1 Planning Area and all
Downtown General design standards
SIGNAGE
In accordance with the City of Fayetremlle Unified Development
Code Chapter 174 requirements for multi -family districts
PA map. (T)_
project clavaland PZD 12-4079 _page lB
'adjacent RSF-4 property has 45height limitation
required setbacks 4 -height regulations diagram
'60 it building height maximum above projected existing grade plane to lop of occupied spaces
project cleveland PZD 12-4079 _page 19
4
late ry unit)
4
Icrm 0 unit)
Iores (I unit)
4t)
acres (G4 unB)
4
crash .a,it)
existing parcels plan E
proposed units
30 units
.
5 units
0.5N
41-m.x height
12 units
75 units
■
0 units
PZD 12-4079 — page 20
Permitted uses will consist mostly of all residential
dwelling types, with conditional uses being that of
cultural and recreational facilities, eating places.
neighborhood shopping goods, and sidewalk cafes
There will be no maximum density and no lot area
minimums. The lot width minimum for all dwelling unit
types will be i 6 feet.
The required front setback will be a build -to zone from
the front property line to 25 feet into the site The front
of the property is referring to the sides facing Cleve-
land Street and Hall Avenue The sides of the prop-
erty will have a required setback of 10 feet. The sides
of the property are referring to those property lines
facing west towards Theta Tau The rear will have no
required setback. The rear of the property is referring
to the side to the west of the building, facing north.
[see the required setbacks diagram on page 191
The minimum buildable street frontage will be 50% of
the lot width on each street facing facade.
Height restrictions on all sides will be a uniform maxi-
mum of 60 feet above projected existing grade plane
to top of occupied spaces.
All structures shall be designed and constructed to
comply with the architectural design standards of
the PA -1 Planning Area. Downtown Design Overlay
District, and all City design standards
The landscaping, parking, and signage will all be
installed in accordance with the City of Fayetteville
Unified Development Code.
aerial photo + diagram of surrounding area (�'\
project Cleveland. PZD 12-4079 _page21
Is
ZONE
RSF-0[porliOn of Cunenlmmng]
PERMITTED
unit 1 city-wide uses by right
USES
unit 6: single-family dwellings
unit 41 accessory dwellings
CONDITIONAL
unit 2: city-wide uses by CUP
USES
unit 3: public protection + utility facilities
unit 4:cultural + recreational facilities
unit 5 government lacilitlee
unit 9 two-family dwellings
unit 12limited business
unit 24 home occupation
unit 36. wireless communications facilities
DENSITY
4 or less single-family units, 7 or less two-family units
LOT WIDTH
single-family
70E
MINIMUM
single-family [hillside overlay district]
60 h
Iwo-famiy
8011
Iwo-lamiy [hillside overlay district]
70 It
LOT AREA
single-family
8,000 sq 11
MINIMUM
single-lamiy [hillside overlay district]
8,000 sq It
Iwo -family
12.000 sq ft
Iwo-lamiy [hillside overlay tla4idj
12.000 sq it
LAND AREA
single-family
8,000 sq If
PER
single-family [hillside overlay district]
8,000 sq ft
DWELLING
Iwo-lamily
6.000 sq ft
UNIT
two-family [hillside overlay district)
6.000 sq ft
REQUIRED
Iront
1511
SETBACKS
side
5 It
rear
1511
MINIMUM
none
BUILDABLE
STREET
FRONTAGE
HEIGHT
4511 maximum
REGULATIONS
existing structures shall be grandlathered in
projectcleveland PZD 12-4079 _page22
ZONE
RMF-40 Iporlion of current zoning]
PERMITTED
unit 1 city-wide uses by right
USES
unit B. single famiN dwellings
unit O- two-family dwellings
unit 10_ three-family dwellings
unit 26: Mufti family dwellings
CONDITIONAL
of 9 citywide uses by CUP
USES
unit 3 public protect, Iulility faculties
unit 4: cultural I recreational facilities
unit 5r government facilities
unit 11 manufactured home park
Witt 12: limited bosinoss
unit 24: home a-cupalm
snit 25 pmIriWill offices
unit 36'. wireless c imunicafiois facilities
DENSITY
40 units or lass
LOT WIDTH
manufactured frame park
100n
MINIMUM
of within a manufactured hang park
50 ft
single-family
60 ft
wn-fwnily
60 ft
mree or rea0
g0 if
pmleseuxtal ,fbres
IDI1
LOTAREA
manufactured home park
3 acres
MINIMUM
lot within a manufactured have park
4p00egf
lownhouses: development Individual lot
10,000sq It
single-family
660057 11
two-family
65005q ft
Three Ormorc
6,000sp ft
iraterniry or saodly
l acre
LAND AREA
manufactured lured ens,
3WOsq It
PER
townhouses r aparlmonIs
DWELLING
no bedroom
1,COesq 1t
UNIT
one bedroom
1,000eq ft
Iwo or more bedrooms
1,200 eq ft
irelcrnity or surarity 560sq ft per resident
REQUIRED
front build -to zone of 10-25 ft
SETBACKS
side aft
,.or 20 h
MINIMUM
50% of lot width
DUILDABLE
STREET
FRONTAGE
HEIGHT
Soft maximum
REGULATIONS
any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be sat back Iran any
side uoundary line of an adjacent single family distinct an additional distance of
one fool for ouch Icet of height is access o120 feel
project cleveland PLO 12-4079 — page 23
ZONE
DOWNTOWN GENERAL (for comparison purposes]
PERMITTED
unit 1_ city-wide uses by right.
USES
unit 4 cultural r rccrcatimal facilities
unit 5 government facilities
unit 8 single-famly dwellings
unit 9 two-family dwellings
unit IfS Three-fornily dwellings
unit 13 eating places.
unit 15: neighborhood shopping goods
unit 24 home occupations
unit 25offices, studios, r rotated services
unit 26: mull[ -[amity dwellings
CONDITIONAL
unit 2 c1ly-wrtle uses by CUP
USES
unit 3 public protection r utility facilities
and 14 hotel, motel i amusement services
unit 16 shopping goods
unit 17 transportation trades r services
unit 19- commercial recreation, small or
unit 28: center for collecting recyclable materials
unit 36 wireless canmunfcations lac➢ities
unit 40: sidewalk cafes
DENSITY
norm
LOT WIDTH
dwelling (all unit types) left
MINIMUM
LOT AREA
none
MINIMUM
LAND AREA
Na
PER
DWELLING
UNIT
REQUIRED
front
build -to zone Iran front property line to 25it
SETBACKS
side
mane
rear
5f1
roar, Iroes cuter line of alley
12 It
MINIMUM
M'b0 ba'ritr
BUILDABLE
STREET
FRONTAGE
HEIGHT
4 stories or Se it (whichever in less]
REGULATIONS
project cleveland. PLO 12-4079. _ page.24
ZONE
PA.I: CAMPUS EDGE
PERMITTED
unI 1'. city-wide uses by right
USES
unit 8 sin gleAamiy dwellings
unit 9: na family dwellings
unit 10. thda family dwellings
unit 26 multi -family dwellings
CONDITIONAL
unit 4.cultUraI + recrcaticn'al facilities
USES
unit 12 Mailed Wsiness
unit 13 eating places
unit IS noighbwfaod shopping goods
unit 40 sidewalk cafes
DENSITY
none
LOT WIDTH
dwelling fall unit types) left
MINIMUM
LOTAREA
none
MINIMUM
LAND AREA
n/a
PER
DWELLING
UNIT
REQUIRED
Irons build to zone from front property Irne to 25'
SETBACKS
side 10'
seer 0'
MINIMUM
50% of lot width
BUILDABLE
STREET
FRONTAGE
HEIGHT
60ft building heigblmaximum abuse proinced cabling grade plane to fop of
REGULATIONS
cccupintl spaces
analysis of site characteristics.
Project Cleveland's site is bounded on two sides by
existing streets. To the east is Hall Avenue and to the
south is Cleveland Street
The property slopes from the south to the north and
is currently covered in a mix of apartments, single-
family homes, and a sparatio tree canopy There are
no tributaries or drainage ways on site besides the
swale along the north edge of the property, which
runs west to east
Located just north of the University of Arkansas
Campus and just west of Leverets Elementary School,
the site has views towards the Maple Hill dormitory
complex and Hotz Hall to the south, as well as views
east and north of existing homes, and west towards
the Theta Tau house
project cleveland PZO 12-4079 - page25
b.
This project proposes two new greenspaces, one
at the tree preservation garden that occupies the
western portion of the property, and one on the north-
east corner of the property, adjacent to Hall Avenue,
These open areas will be accessible and usable by
tenants as well as neighbors. These are not specfi-
cally dedicated parks, but will be maintained by the
development for the greater benefit of the neighbor-
hood
City of Fayetteville public parks and open areas exist
within ready access to this project, including Asbell
Park, Wilson Park, Agri Park, Holz Park, and Old Main
Lawn at the University of Arkansas. Large areas of the
university campus also serve as a greenspace. This
project is within close proximity to bike trails such as
Scull Creek Trail, Frisco Trail, and Oak Ridge Trail.
A development such as Project Cleveland would
not be possible under other zoning districts There
currently exists a gap in the existing city zoning that
does not properly address sites adjacent to the Uni-
versity campus. This Campus Edge zone requires an
advantageous density in order to best utilize the site
The project designers wish to present current and
future residents some of the lifestyle amenities that
the Fayetteville 2030 City Plan provides by encourag-
ing pedestrian street life yet in a more appropriately
urban manner.
project clevcland PZD 12-4079 - page 26
tree preservatioi
existing tree pre;
area on adjacent
tree preservat
1E
22
green screen
garage
19
16
32
sire
pocket park
terraced courtyard entrance
street trees
new trees in courtyard
landscaped courtyard
landscaped light + air well
sliest lrees
tree preservation garden + outdoor space diagram
protect: ela 'd PZD 124079 - page 27
low impact design diagram
bio swale/rain garden
rain garden
rain garden
ram garden
ram garden
project Cleveland PZD 12-4079. — page 28
b,
To the west is the Theta Tau house along with other single-
family residences, to the north are single family residences.
Adjacent to the east are single-family rentable homes as
well as Leverett Elementary School Further to the east are
approximately four square blocks of multi-familty structures
Directly across the street to the south is the large University
of Arkansas campus dormitory complex, Maple Hill, and the
nine story dormitories Hotz Hall and Reid Hall
Project Cleveland will solidify the corner of Cleveland Street
and Hall Avenue, and address the rather large presence
of the Maple Hill, Holz Hall, and Reid Hall dormitories The
facade of these streets will be solid and consistent when
adjacent to larger institutional zones, while scale will be
gradually broken down when adjacent to more residential
zoning and buffered with landscape screening systems, The
building will be a safe and pleasant distance from the street
and feature sidewalks and landscaping
The traffic will access Project Cleveland from Hall Avenue
traveling north fiom Cleveland Street The majority of traffic
from Cleveland Street will be from the east, but there will be
a smaller amount from the west This will be in accordance
with the UDC access management
All signage is to comply with the City of Fayetteville Unified
Development Code
I
fig„ re ground of surrounding neighborhood
project Cleveland I g ran g' n• i'ni' g-camr campus area
multi -family housing
project caveerau PZO 12-4079 _ page 29
east elevation with site context + height comparison
11 AM
1 PM
9AM
•i L11
3PM
11r11::jj;...;
5PM
9AM 11 AM 1PM 3PM 5PM
11 leverett elementary school playground area project ckvoIana PZID 12-4079 - page.30
site section - plan e
I
I site section rurning no,Wsouth through maple hill dormitory, project cleveland, + homes on hall avenue - looking west
2 site section running nodEVsoulh through hall avenue - looking west
wI Jill.'
project cleveland PZD 12-4079. — page 31
project cleveland
� ■_
campus edge diagram
The Campus Edge Zone provides an appropriate
connection between two different, yet compatible
land uses, one being the dense University of Arkan-
sas campus, and the other being the lower density
housing areas which surround the campus, This zone
allows for larger massing to be situated near campus
with that massing reducing in scale and height as it
moves toward lower density areas. The materials also
transition from institutional to more residential types.
tifldiJLiJiJ
■ ■ • . • r
■ f ■
e
university of arkansas garland center
project cicvclzno PZD 12-O079 - page. 32
r
'a
rafnscreen operable glazing storefront glazing architectural concrete stucco wood
institutional palette - - - - - - - - - - residential palette
dark brick light brick
material transitions
project cleveland PZD 12-4079 — page 33
a 824 n hall eve
b 816 n hall ave
c 800n hall ave
d 1164w, Cleveland ave
e 1220 w Cleveland ave*
I 725n hallave*
g 727n. hall ave*
h 805 n hall ave *
U
project Gevalan6. PZD 12-4079 _page34
m. 1236 w. cleveland st *
e 1220wcleveland st *
n 1164 w cleveland sl
i. 1400 w cleveland st
j 1338w cleveland sl
k 1326w clevelandsl
11322 w cleveland sl
Hi
d. 1100 w cleveland sl
0 1175 n garland ave p 1261 w cleveland at q 1263 w cleveland st
r 1365 w cleveland sl
* indicates building is currently occupying the project cleveland site project ccvclanc P70 12-4079 - page 35
project clevelac tl PZD 12-4079 - page. 36
A
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING GOALS.
GOAL 1
Protect Cleveland's rnull slmleyy will provide a rrore appropriate
We will make appropnate inlill and reelalizalion our highest priorities,
density for this Campus Edge zone by utilizing the property to its
correct potential More units in close proximity to the University and
other neighborhood services will encourage even more appropri-
ate development and revitalization right where it is needed
GOAL 2
Projecl Cleveland discourages suburban sprawl by concentral-
We will discourage suburban sprawl
ing residential population near the center of the city and near the
University campus, encouraging more revitilizalbn in this area, and
decreasing traffic and infra structure expansion deotands on the
rest of the city
GOAL 3
Project Cleveland encourages the values of traditional urban lile
We will make traditional town form the standard
by encouraging pedestrian activity through a street -level cafe or
coffee shop and relegating parking and building services to the
interior of the building
GOAL 4
Project Cleveland encourages the use of alternative transportation
We will grew a livable transportation network
methods by being directly on the Razorback Transit route, being in
close proximity to the University campus, being in close proxim-
ity to bike trails, and providing appropriately scaled and usable
sidewalks
GOAL 5
Project Cleveland contributes to the green network of Fayette -
We will assemble an enduring green network
ville by advancing the development of the Campus Edge zone
as having tree lined streets, rich landscape elements, a planted
courtyard, and various elevational green screens This project will
bet FFD Silver certified at a rmnimum
GOAL 6
Protect Cleveland is the definition of allainable housing Condos
We will create opportunities forattatnable housing
and upscale housing units built in the past have caused a large
amount of space in the downtown and campus area to remain
empty, saving the city with appropriate density possibliUes still
unrealized By providing well designed yet affordable, rentable
apartment units directed towards students and young profession-
als, Project Cleveland is helping to revitalize this area and create
the density and liveliness that is more appropriate for this Campus
Edge zone
project cleveland PZD 12-4079 — page 37
N
Two traffic studies have been completed The following findings and recommendations are excerpts from pages
31-33 of the study completed by Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc . dated May 10, 2012
ndings and Hecomrrendations of 5 -ado Study 01
Approximately 1,043 vehicle trips (combined in
and out) per average weekday are projected
to be generated by the proposed residential
student housing land use on this site Of this total,
approximately 75 vehicle trips are estimated
during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour,
approximately 85 vehicle trips are estimated dur-
ing the traffic conditions of the school PM peak
hour and approximately 144 vehicle trips are
estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM
peak hour.
• Capacity and LOS analysis results for existing
traffic conditions for the study intersections indi-
cate existing vehicle movements for existing traf-
fic conditions at the study intersections presently
operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS
"0" or better for the AM, school PM and typical
PM peak hours
Capacity and LOS analysis results performed for
projected traffic conditions for the AM, school PM
and typical PM peak hours for the study intersec-
tions indicate vehicle movements at the study
intersections are expected to continue to operate
at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "0" or
better for the worst -case AM, school PM and typi-
cal PM peak hours
• Project Cleveland is along the existing Razorback
Transit route This will facilitate usage by resi-
dents and have the effect of reducing vehicular
traffic generation
• The access drive proposed to serve the Project
Cleveland development will intersect Hall Avenue
only with no direct access via Cleveland Street
Access via Hall Avenue (local street) is better
than direct access on higher volume Cleveland
Street (Collector) providing fewer non -site traffic
volume conflicts with ingress and egress to the
site
Existing daily volume on Hall Avenue is approxi-
mately 860 vehicles per typical weekday (two-
way volume), It is expected that approximately 25
percent of the site generated traffic will utilize Hall
Avenue, north of the site (an additional Iwo -way
volume of approximate 260 vehicles per day)
The combined total of the projected 1,120 ve-
hicles per day (two-way volume) on Hall Avenue,
north of the site is expected to remain well below
the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan local
street service volume of less than 4,000 vehicles
per day.
It is projected that approximately 30 percent of
the site generated traffic volumes is expected to
enter and exit the proposed site form the west
via Cleveland Street It is assumed that most, if
not all, of this traffic from the west will be from or
destined to the University of Arkansas facilities,
thereby using Razorback Road, west of the site
It is expected that very little, if any, site -generated
traffic volumes will likely travel west of Razorhack
Road via Cleveland Street unless they are des-
tined to a specific location in that area This travel
pattern is consistent with traffic counts made
west of the site at Cleveland Roads intersections
with Razorback Road. Sunset Avenue and Oliver
Avenue
• It is recommended to construct the site access
drives along Hall Avenue to consist of an inbound
lane and an outbound lane.
• The new access drive intersection along Hall
Avenue must conform City of Fayetteville design
standards and will require approval by the City.
It is recommended to install pedestrian crossing
warning signs per the MUTCD for traffic exiting
the site drive approaching Hall Avenue. Also, it is
recommended to include pedestrian crosswalk
markings at the site access drive adjacent to Hall
Avenue- Additionally, it is recommended to install
a new crosswalk (and required MUTCD signs)
across Hall Avenue near the north edge of the
site. This could be constructed as a raised cross-
walk with embedded LED lights in pavement to
also serve to reduce speed by vehicles on Hall
Avenue in the vicinity.
• II is recommended that consideration be given
to including raised crosswalks with embedded
LED lights in pavement enhancements to existing
crosswalks along Cleveland Street, between Hall
Avenue and Garland Avenue due to the existing
high pedestrian activity observed in this area
project Cleveland. PZD 12-4079 - page 38
The following findings and recommendations are excerpts from pages 07-37 of the study completed by Small
Arrow Engineering, LLC, dated May 14.2012
H i'Jir,cir end He r ndabori of 1 irlr. saidt 0C
Existing Conditions
• The existing signalized intersection at Cleveland
Street & Garland Avenue is operating at LOS B
with a delay of 19 5 secNeh for the AM peak
hour and LOS C with a delay of 28 2 secNeh for
the PM peak hour.
• The intersection of Hall Avenue & Cleveland
Street with a single stop control on the south-
bound lane operated at LOS A for both the AM
and PM peak hours in the undeveloped condi-
tion
Consideration should be given to removing mid -
block crosswalks for improved pedestrian safety
Add a "Do Not Enter" sign on the "One Way" sign
Existing + Developed Conditions.
The signalized intersection of Cleveland Street
and Garland Avenue would operate at LOS C
with a delay of 22 1 secNeh for the AM peak
hour and LOS C with a delay of 28.6 secNeh
for the PM peak hour. When compared to the
same time periods without the new development,
there is a 2.6 second increase in delay for the
AM and a 0.4 second increase in delay in the
PM. The intersection of Hall Avenue & Cleveland
Street continued to operate at LOS A for both the
AM and PM peak hours when stop control was
added on the east and west directions for the
developed conditions
At the Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street intersection.
• Adding a 3 to 4 inch high raised table as a traffic
calming feature at the intersection or milling the
intersection and constructing contrasting pave-
ment colors/types in the intersection and in the
crosswalk areas. (ie Crosswalks could be brick
pavers with a colored stamped concrete logo in
the intersection
• Adding 10 foot wide crosswalks along the west
and south sides of the intersection
• Widening the existing 6 foot wide crosswalks
along the north and east sides of the intersection
to 10 fool wide crosswalks
• Adding/Improving lighting in/near the intersec-
tion
• Adding a "Do Not Enter" sign on the "One Way"
sign to the university's driveway to add an ad-
ditional level of enforcement
• Consideration may be given to adding a cross-
walk beacon system
At the mid -block crosswalks:
• Consideration should be given to removing the
crosswalks for safety reasons with those move-
ments moved to either the Hall and Cleveland
intersection or the Garland and Cleveland inter-
section.
Future Cond Tons (2032)
• The signal at Cleveland Street and Garland Ave-
nue would operate at LOS C with a delay of 26 3
secNeh for the AM peak hour and LOSE with a
delay of 69.3 secNeh for the PM peak hour.
• The intersection of Hall Avenue & Cleveland
Street with a single stop control on the south-
bound lane operated at LOS B for both the AM
and PM peak hours in the future condition
• Adding a dedicated eastbound left turn lane at
the Cleveland Street and Garland Avenue signal
should be considered to remove the split timing
Future + Developed Conditions (2032).
• For the Future (2032) Developed Condition, the
existing signal at Cleveland Street and Garland
Avenue would operate at LOS C with a delay of
28.9 sec/veh for the AM peak hour and LOS
E with a delay of 72 2 secNeh for the PM peak
hour.
• The intersection of Hall Avenue & Cleveland
Street continued to operate at LOS B for both the
AM and PM peak hours when stop control was
added on the east and west directions for the
developed conditions
project clevolznd PZD 12-4079 _page39
A
nr �-rrr
8' sidewalk
wilh street Trees
75' compact parking lane
and shared bike lane
13 shared bike lane
13' shared bike lane
cleveland street plan diagram
l iJ r
•� �'•�114� Qv 4 [rl '. f
•�����. Ham' I.S ii _�i-
projectceveland PZD 12-4079 _page4l
N
Project Cleveland will connect to proposed utility
lines and will improve upon existing water and sewer
infrastructure to meet city requirements
Storm water discharge will meet requirements of
the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code &
Drainage Manual by use of underground detention
with lid strategies.
Is
1. + 2, dedication + on or off site improvements.
All public streets along with their associated side-
walks and drainage improvements will be designed
and constructed in accordance with The Master
Street Plan, City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances.
Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 172:
Parking & Loading, Chapter 171: Streets and Side-
walks, and Chapter 170: Storm Water Management,
Drainage & Erosion Control respectively. All of the
above areas will be dedicated to the City, and main-
tenance will then be provided by the City. Sewer and
Water improvements will also be planned and built in
accordance with the City of Fayetteville
3. natural resources + environmentally sensitive areas.
There are no significant natural resources or environ-
mentally sensitive areas on site
project develarnd PZD 12-4079 - page. 42
4. project phasing restrictions
As this is essentially a single building urban typology
proposal, there will be only one phase for the project
Fire and police protection will be provided by the
Fayetteville Fire and Police Departments. The units
presented in this PZD are not seen to present any
needed increase in protection and service
Two fire lanes will be provided: one on Cleveland
Street and one on Hall Avenue
6 other commitments mposed by the c ty.
There are currently nc other commitments imposed
by the City of Fayetteville,
7 parks, Ira s , open space commtments,
Greenspace requirements will be met for Project
Cleveland; tree preservation and protection will be
implemented in accordance with the City of Fayette-
ville Code of Ordinances Title HV Unified Develop-
ment Code: Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protec-
tion. Landscaping within Project Cleveland will also
be planned in accordance with the City of Fayetteville
Landscape Manual, which sets forth the standards
and specifications for Tree Preservation, Protection,
and Landscaping
e proposed preliminary building e eval ons
See section "C 9." on pages 1O.11 for proposed
building elevations
nowtire ion e acese.
project cleveiand P7O12-4079. - page 43
SO
1. screening + andscaping
Trees and other landscape features will be planted as
shown on the plats Trees shall line the public streets
of the development in harmony with city codes and
requirements Landscaping will also be consistent
with the submitted Landscape Plan
The traffic and vehicle circulation areas will be in-
stalled in accordance with the Unified Development
Code and per traffic study recommendations.
3 parking standards [parking diagrams on page 45]
All parking areas will be installed in accordance with
section 172 of the Unified Development Code.
The parking garage is concealed on three sides by
building and will conform to city requirements for
parking garages
4 perimeter treatment.
All uses of land or structures will meet the open
space, buffer, and green strip provisions of the Uni-
fied Development Code
5 s dewalks
Public sidewalks will be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Master Street Plan and Section
171 of the Unified Development Code
6. streetlights.
Streetlights will be built to the specifications of the
Unified Development Code Custom streetlights will
be used as needed
7 water. [diagram on page 46]
Approximately 312 LF of the existing 6" waterline
running west from the intersection of Cleveland Street
and Hall Avenue will need to be upgraded to an 8"
waterline. Additionally, approximately 460 LF of exist-
ing 6' waterline running Northward from the intersec-
tion of Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue would need
to be upgraded to a 12" waterline. All utilities will be
installed according to city requirements
8. sewer. [diagram on page 46]
The existing 6" sanitary sewer line that runs north/
south on Hall Avenue will need lobe upgraded to an
8" sanitary sewer line. This upgrade would need to
occur from the intersection of Wedington Drive, south
to Project Cleveland's northeast property corner (ap-
prox. 915 LF),
9 streets + drainage
The development will not increase the amount of
storm runoff from the site to the adjacent proper-
ties than currently exists, in fact, existing problems
will be remedied Runoff on the site will be detained
underground in the courtyard area The runoff will
be released at a rate such that the peak runoff is not
increased due to the development The runoff will
discharge into existing storm drainage along Hall
Avenue
10 construction of nonresidential facilities
The street level of Project Cleveland will contain a
possible coffee shop or sidewalk cafe as both an
ammenity for the residents as well as an ammenity for
the surrounding neighborhood There will also be an
ammenities club house near the courtyard entrance
on Hall Avenue to contain all necessary ammenities
for the tenants of Project Cleveland.
11 tree preservation.
Tree preservation at Project Cleveland will follow Title
XV of the Unified Development Code, Chapter 167:
Tree Preservation and Protection,
The required preserved canopy for a PZD is 25%.
however only 19 8% is existing Extensive efforts
have been undertaken to maintain and preserve
existing trees specifically in areas that lie between
this development and adjacent properties In all,
6 8% canopy is being preserved on site Nine large
species trees will be planted on site to add to current
canopy calculations, and an additional sum will be
paid into the City's tree escrow account to aid in the
maintenance and planting of trees throughout the City
of Fayetteville
12. architectural design standards.
Project Cleveland will comply with the architectural
design standards of Title XV of the Unified Devel-
opment Code, Chapter 166: Development, sec-
tion166 21: Downtown Design Overlay District with
the following revisions due to the nature of student
housing design common in this zone:
a We propose the required minimum glass
on the first or ground floor to he lowered
from 40% to 20%.
b We also propose no restrictions on pedes-
trian access intervals along principal
facades.
Both items found in Section E Exterior Architectural
Elements, 7 Opacity and Facades, b Firstor Ground
Floor Requirements of Any Principal Facade
13 proposed signage [type and size]
All signage is to comply with the City of Fayetteville
Unified Development Code No pole/pylon signs will
be permitted within Project Cleveland. Signage clas-
sifications in accordance with the UDC is specified in
the zoning criteria for the Planning Area.
14 view protection
There are no existing threatened views by completion
of this project
15 revocations
The developer understands causes for revocation
and will take all measures necessary to avoid revoca-
tion
16. covenants, trusts + homeowner associations.
No covenants, trusts, or homeowner associations cur-
rently exist for this property
project cicveiand PZD 12-4079 - page 44
standard spaces -'°�
compact spaces. 9.
parking provided 6
md0r/sccler
spaces (m(s):
parking garage diagram - levels 01-05
standard spaces: 49
compact spaces a
parking provided $
motorlscaoler
spaces (Ms).
bike racks (br):
swneard saces:
crmpact spans
pang-lg porno
parking garage diagram - level 00
parking garage diagram S level 06
project cleveland PZD12-O079 _page 45
wale, tine — sanitary sewer line
all now o!ectrrcal lines to be planed unde,ground.
— storm walat d,ainage . . . urgradad tine
extand noilh to Wellington U'ria miereection
area drain
6" Tine upgradad tc 6 no
under grdune storm wale, detention
large area inlets
area drain
6" line upgraded to 12line
6 lire upgraded to 8" line
proposed uliliry+ storm water diagram 1T
protect t'eV0 tt:4: ♦'ZD 12-4U]S _ page 46
F
The proposed structure(s) in accordance and sup-
port of the proposed Campus Edge zoning district
decisively address and define the ability to provide
infill development within an identifiable zoning gap
in the City of Fayetteville By providing a transitional
zone appropriately scaled to the diversity of the con-
text, this zone and the proposed structure will support
and exceed the Fayetteville 2030 plan, reinforce the
sustainable network of our city, and positively affect
the city infrastructure through appropriate improve-
ments, The nature of the development will fulfill the
growing need for attainable, walkable, multifamily
housing in the City of Fayetteville.
project Cleveland PZD 12-4079 _ page.47
39x;;
-\ H I __
(I)a
e @ TT: :::T; ___ g Nil
cam __ E
-a-_
PROJECT CLEVELAND
FAYETTEVILLE, AR.
Iana "
PZD 12-4079
42"w.
MAY 2012
MTM��w
""r "`wm.+ i."`--�s"°""'""""""w"�."'
0.
FY122106
ura
C`S rP.at ttl..... w0.. 0ar me bass ww
e
a. ho SIO S N 1 I tlM I.tla.�ala.—Ya tl TNC a,504
o N1..W—_ aas.rYt ®. we.tl-.m u.a.ti..r. 0 N N
a-44-Pb M1.i.a.. Pt's YIosts ft0d Pt WIwtlYs..aa.wa Y
m Stoo ..-Y So.oS..wl.~ve 4M Si—WT'h,a
a. s..a.. r0.. P70— lO*0a.Ia00050100 - Wu
a.ar .bad Da.. N Dada 0MYY.anY.abw aa.uw
..5'a. a.- PC05t aara._a w7 r.r sosto.
.a.._. as _aa.s a a. n......a a n m r....
1...b,at S— m.. PSadI.. a".s. I lot 5.a..aaY�0-*0_ —..oe 1.6
floe 50001 lY 00aS.h01
Ma..1.. D.ub -_x.... rmem.u4
s WfOD.MONISOA IYas
tveavatl..san*0
Ma X M..a. OaY DEVJ Nt. Mu o.vla V4 a N_. M1saa N Nat MT V bat a.W4_s fM M -a.
Pt.. IMN®M.a M—ON_a_ia—S em at YM%NfGaYNM]OYY
a_OW 4_.a W aJav —P...iaa tl YAaa
500 NatA Y..a vnl✓av—fY.fas tln t
pa _a ry tlMS M eiaa.w sad��ya
avv MNN PnY a.M..a_nt_ss.WY
Ill Ia. M a.. tat. -Na.tl a,*. a0as M1
-S 0_I 0505 500 bw awy—
boa
Nn.uc MC.a
amaua
F[.ea.a
33 02 000
*00002101
IjET
eV l[n
PROJECT CLEVELAND
PZD - PA -1 CAMPUS EDGE `d
St
Ii
W. clevgland 31.
o � r
6 V u
C2.0
PROJECT CLEVELAND PZD - PA -1 CAMPUS EDGE
A
-
144 -i!
C3.9
f �
ii fl
yy )
43t11 1
T � \•
tCALCt
C LECENIE
2
1
/
j t£•
}.
9
a
r'
tk ti
f`
BFI
�rrrr
,fl
n�rr.� �
Q
C5.0
,
1d
- O?
II I
I
I �e
V1.
f `
H ___
.. H
a
c7.o
..�_ ..`""3'5 � _ _ - _ '1E
.... _
I (n=
70-.
JYREE ORATE AND STB9QVBdL ••� '
C9A
g v
Q
19.2
Departmental Correspondence
RKANSA
TO: Mayor Jordan
City Council
1
/ j
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Jason B. Kelley
Assistant City Attorney
CC: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney'(
DATE: May 30, 2012
RE: Woodstock Rezoning and Cleveland Street Project PZD
Zoning and Planned Zoning District considerations
I have been providing Aldermen the legal factors they can consider when
determining whether or not to approve a PZD or zoning request for over a decade.
When the City Council first began considering whether or not to approve a PZD, I
provided the attached memo on May 22, 2003. It is still correct today. Please
especially read the section entitled "Voting" to ensure that I can effectively defend
any decision the City Council will make.
When the land now zoned PZD (Woodstock) was presented to the Planning
Commission, I gave them the attached memo of May 11, 2012, stating that the
property owner had the legal right to have his property zoned away from the
defunct PZD into a developable zone. The City Council needs to rezone this
property to the best possible zoning district or districts after considering all of the
relevant factors.
You can weigh many factors to determine what is the best zoning district or
districts for this property. You should certainly consider the 2030 Plan, but it is
only one of many factors to consider when determining the proper zoning. It is
also proper to consider the desires of the property owner, the appropriate and best
use of the property, traffic issues, good civil design and arrangement and the other
factors detailed in my May 1 1th memo. All of these factors are proper
considerations both for the Cleveland Street Apartment Project PZD and the
defunct Woodstock PZD property whose new owner requests rezoning into various
zoning districts: Community Services,
Conservation, Resident Single Family,
Family, 24 units per acre.
Neighborhood Services, Neighborhood
units per acre and Residential Multi -
CONCLUSION
If any Alderman desires to vote against a proposed rezoning or PZD
approval, please explain your opposition based upon one or more of the factors
approved by the Supreme Court:
1. 2030 Plan objectives
2. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable
3. Traffic
4. Safety and Fire protection
5. Good civic design and efficiency
6. Adequacy of public facilities (sewage, water)
7. Noise
8. Litter
9. Decrease in value of adjoining land
10. Appropriate and best use of land
11. Compatibility with adjacent zones (spot zoning)
2
Departmental Correspondence
KANSA
TO: Planning Commissioners
_T.
Kit Williams
City Attorney
Jason B. Kelley
Assistant City Attorney
CC: Jeremy Pate, Development Services Director
Andrew Garner, Senior Current Planner
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney ----- ���,
DATE: May 11, 2012
RE: Expired PZD's must be rezoned upon owner's request
When a PZD has expired, the property owner loses all development rights on his
property until it is rezoned. Almost all of a property's real worth and value is in its
development rights. This loss of all of a property's development rights would constitute a
government taking of the property requiring our taxpayers to pay the reasonable value of
the property (very large amount of money) except the property owner must first "exhaust
his remedies" by asking for a rezoning.
As long as the rezoning is granted by the City Council, no regulatory taking has
occurred. However, if the property owner's request to rezone the property out of its
"zombie" status (unusable and undevelopable) is just denied and the property is not
rezoned into some developable zoning district, the property owner would probably have a
textbook case of inverse condemnation or regulatory taking. This must not be allowed to
occur.
Because the new owner of the property zoned for the now defunct Woodstock PZD
has requested rezoning, the Planning Commission should recommend what you believe is
appropriate zoning. If you get stuck on how it should be zoned now, please just
recommend that the City Council rezone it back to the zoning it had prior to the approval of
the PZD. The City Council MUST rezone this property either to its prior zoning
district or to the zoning district or districts that would conform to state law purposes
and the 2030 Long Range Plan. Just denying the property owner's requested rezoning is
a recipe for disaster and must not happen.
When the Planning Commission is considering whether or not to recommend
approval of a rezoning request, the City Planning Division presents useful information
from various city departments that cover issues included with the City's 2030 Long Range
Plan. This document was the result of many public hearings and much input from citizens,
staff, commissioners and council members. However, "A land use plan is meant to be just
that — a plan. It is not legally binding on the city." Taylor v. City of Little Rock, 583
S.W. 2d 72, 73 (1979).
State Statutes authorize cities to prepare zoning and development plans
and list nine purposes or goals that these plans may promote:
"1. Efficiency and economy in the process of development;
2. The appropriate and best use of land;
3. Convenience of traffic and circulation of people and
goods;
4. Safety from fire and other dangers;
5. Adequate light and air in the use and occupancy of
buildings;
6. Healthful and convenient distribution of population;
7. Good civic design and arrangement;
8. Adequate public utilities and facilities; and
9. Wise and efficient expenditure of funds."
A.C.A. § 14-56-403 (b).
The appellate courts of Arkansas have recognized and approved many different
factors that a Planning Commission can consider when a proposed rezoning is contested.
Public Opposition
"Opposition by a large majority of the citizens in the neighborhood"
Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992).
"The Opinion of local residents, when it reflects logical
and reasonable concerns ...."
City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996).
"Some of the residents (of the area) objected ...."
Tanner v. City of Green Forest (1990).
Traffic
"Increased traffic on limited roads"
City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996).
"Increased risk of traffic accidents"
Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992).
Noise
City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996).
4. Decreased value of adjoining land
City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996).
Potential for criminal activity
Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992).
6. Increased litter
Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992).
7. Strain on Sewage service
Tannery. City of Green Forest (1990).
8. Spot zoning
"The need to maintain consistent zoning area, and not to set
a precedent of spot zoning .... (T)he property was entirely
surrounded by a residential area, and that the residents
objected...." Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena, 310 Ark.
682, 839 S.W. 2d 523, 525 (1992).
"Spot zoning has been defined by several authorities. It
has been said that:
` Spot zoning, by definition, is invalid because
it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable treatment of a limited area
within a particular district. As such, it
departs from the comprehensive treatment
or privileges not in harmony with the other
use classifications in the area and without
any apparent circumstances which call for
different treatment. Spot zoning almost
invariably involves a single parcel or at least
a limited area.' R. Wright and S. Webber,
Land Use (1978)." Riddell v. City of Brinkley,
612 S.W. 2d 116, 117 (1981).
"(S)pot zoning includes zoning one lot in a manner entirely
different from the surrounding area .... " Smith v. City of Little Rock,
279 Ark. 4, 648 S.W. 2d 454, 457 (1983).
However, the most recent case I could find referring to "spot zoning" {Camden
Community Development Corp. v. Sutton, 339 Ark. 368, 5 S.W. 3d 439, 443 (1999)} cast
doubt on Professor Wright's quoted statement that "Spot zoning, by definition, is
invalid ...."
Finally, a proponent of a rezoning will often argue that he or she is entitled to a
rezoning in order to put the property to its "highest and best use" from a monetary
viewpoint. The benefit to the owner of a proposed rezoning may certainly be considered,
"(h)owever, we have held that rezoning is not justified solely on the ground that it is
necessary to put a particular tract to its most remunerative use." Tanner v. City of
Green Forest, 302 Ark. 170, 788 S.W. 2d 727, 729 (1990). (emphasis added).
CONCLUSION/SUMMARY
Factors that may be considered in rezoning issues:
1. 2030 Plan objectives
2. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable
3. Traffic
4. Safety and Fire protection
5. Good civic design and efficiency
6. Adequacy of public facilities (sewage, water)
7. Noise
8. Litter
9. Decrease in value of adjoining land
10. Appropriate and best use of land
11. Compatibility with adjacent zones (spot zoning)
M
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
Krr WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
LEGAL DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Dan Coody, Mayor
City Council
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: May 22, 2003
RE: City Council Considerations for Planned Zoning Districts (PZD's)
Since you are now considering a PZD for Lowe's and will
consider the St. Joseph property for a Planned Zoning District at your
next meeting, I thought you might like a short summary of issues that
are appropriate for your consideration of these requests.
A Planned Zoning District includes approval of both a zoning
change and a large-scale development. Thus, all zoning
considerations as well as considerations relevant to LSD approval are
relevant. You legally have much more discretion for the zoning part of
the PZD decision. Therefore, my recommendation is that if you do not
believe a Planned Zoning District should be passed, you should refer
primarily to problems with changing the zoning rather than problems
in the Large Scale Development when explaining why you are voting
against any Planned Zoning District.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
1. 20/20 Plan objectives
2. Public opposition that is logical and reasonable
3. Traffic
4. Safety and Fire protection
5. Good civic design and efficiency
6. Adequacy of public facilities (sewage, water)
7. Noise
8. Litter
9. Decrease in value of adjoining land
10. Appropriate and best use of land
11. Compatibility with adjacent zones(spot zoning)
"Spot Zoning" has been recognized by state courts as a
violation of a city's comprehensive zoning plan.
"The need to maintain consistent zoning area,
and not to set a precedent of spot zoning.
(T)he property was entirely surrounded by a
residential area, and that the residents objected
" Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena, 310
Ark. 682, 839 S.W. 2d 523,525 (1992).
"Spot zoning" has been defined by several authorities. It
has been said that:
" ' Spot zoning', by definition, is invalid because
it amounts to an arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable treatment of a'limited area
within a particular district. As such, it
departs from the comprehensive treatment
or privileges not in harmony with the other
use classifications in the area and without
any apparent circumstances which call for
different treatment. Spot zoning almost
invariably involves a single parcel or at least
a limited area." R. Wright and S. Webber,
Land Use (1978)." Riddell v. City of Brinkley,
612 S.W. 2d 116,117 (1981).
"(S)pot zoning includes zoning one lot in a manner
entirely different from the surrounding area .... "
Smith v. City of Little Rock, 279 Ark. 4, 648 S.W. 2d
454,457 (1983).
"Highest and best use."
•.. A proponent of a rezoning will often argue that he or she is
entitled to a rezoning in order to put the property to its "highest and
best use" from a monetary viewpoint. The benefit to the owner of a
proposed rezoning may certainly be considered, "(h)owever, we have
held that rezoning is not justified solely on the ground that it is
necessary to put a particular tract to its most remunerative use."
Tanner v. City of Green Forest, 302 Ark. 170, 788 S.W. 2d 727, 729
(1990). (emphasis added).
LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
In the second part of your decision, you have less discretion. As
long as the developer has complied with our development ordinances
(you should rely upon our city staff for this analysis), the remaining
issue would be whether this proposed development would compound
a dangerous traffic condition. That does not mean only whether more
traffic will result from a development (which would almost always be
the case), but whether the existing and proposed transportation
infrastructure serving the new development can handle the anticipated
increased flow without causing or compounding a dangerous traffic
condition.
"For the purpose of this section, a 'dangerous' traffic
condition shall be construed to mean a traffic condition
in which the risk of accidents involving motor vehicles
is significant due to factors such as, but not limited to,
high traffic volume, topography, or the nature of the
traffic pattern." §166.05 7. d. (4) Unified Development
Code.
In that context, if you determine that parking from the proposed
development would regularly and significantly overflow onto nearby,
narrow streets, you might conclude that this creates or compounds a
dangerous traffic condition.
Traffic is also a factor to be considered in the rezoning segment of
your decision (where you have greater discretion). At least two recent
Arkansas Supreme Court cases relied on traffic issues to sustain a
rejection of rezoning.
"Increased traffic on limited roads"
City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park (1996).
"Increased risk of traffic accidents"
Thomas Petroleum v. West Helena (1992).
VOTING
When you state your reasons to vote for or against these PZDs
and any other potentially controversial rezonings or PZDs, please refer
to some of the eleven factors recognized by our Supreme court to be
relevant to zoning considerations.
Do not refer to things you have no control over such as the
current zoning of the property when explaining any vote against the
PZD.
• Keep in mind that most developmental issues such as compliance
with the Commercial Design Standards, Tree Ordinance, Parking Lot
Landscaping Ordinance, Sign Ordinance, drainage and grading
regulations, etc. have already been carefully considered and approved
by our Planning and Engineering Departments and Planning
Commission. Your job under the PZD Ordinance is not to go back to
square one to re-examine everything as a second Planning
Commission.
However, I believe you have the power to agree to changes in the
Large Scale Development .or Preliminary Plat contrary to the precise
approval of the Planning Commission. You have these rights now on
appeal from Planning Commission decisions on LSDs and Preliminary
Plats. 'I believe the City Council may judiciously approve changes (if
consistent with our ordinances). Most changes should also be
acceptable to the developer/proponent. Changes unacceptable to the
developer equate with a rejection of the project and should be
supported by reasons sufficient to reject the whole PZD (without the
changes).
Please feel free to call upon me at the meeting prior to moving to
accept or reject the PZD request to clarify any factors or issues
presented in this memo.
1 0 Framework
Goals
Objectives
Actions
...
iL
�F
.. f
.
f,
,
M
��,. J.�
n
' \ a":'
+�' f [ .`..�
L�
'1� :: lis�
•
��P1
'f
I JI'
J
1l [MMM
FRAMEWORK
The Framework chapter establishes a vision for what Fayetteville can achieve by 2030 and
is designed for use by elected and appointed officials, City staff, residents, businesses and
developers. This chapter contains six goals that were developed through an intensive public
participation and internal analysis process. Each goal contains policies that provide guidance for
decision -making and achieving the stated goat. Policies typically don't have a time frame, as
they provide direction only; however, action steps are specific measures that the City pursues to
implement these policies. While some action steps are ongoing, most have an identifiable time
frame for completion.
VISION STATEMENT
In 2030, Fayetteville will be a resource -efficient community, in which citizens and
stakeholders can live, work, learn, and grow. Fayetteville wilt have adopted policies to achieve
sustainability, to provide economic growth, to preserve and protect our natural and cultural
resources, and to enhance the quality of life for all residents. Residents wilt have equitable
access to neighborhoods that are healthy, walkable, and distinct.
GOALS
The six goals in the Framework chapter reinforce the community's vision for Fayetteville in
2030, and individually, address major concerns raised by the public. Collectively though, these
goals advance the idea of a sustainable community, in both rural and urban areas. The City of
Fayetteville defines "sustainability" as meeting the needs of the present population without
compromising future generations' abilities to meet their own needs.
Our rural environment contains great natural resources, including forests, agricultural lands and
numerous streams and lakes. These amenities must be preserved and enhanced, as they are
unique qualities that set Fayetteville apart from other cities in the region. This generation and
the next will observe the loss of these amenities, declining water quality and elimination of the
most productive agricultural lands that support local food production, if inefficient, low -density
development patterns are continued and transportation issues are not addressed. This will have
an economic impact as well, since the quality of life offered by Fayetteville is an important
marketing factor for residents and employers.
The core of the city contains many of our historically significant buildings, neighborhoods and
landscapes. Each reflects the history of Fayetteville and the community's character and identity.
Historic preservation is not only a cultural benefit, but an alternative to greenfield development.
Smart urban design enhances Fayetteville's urban fabric by promoting the re -use of existing
buildings and limiting suburban sprawl through the encouragement of infill development in core
areas of the City.
f.
E ^ter Z
PLAN
2030 I
Goal 1: We will make appropriate infill and revitalization
our highest priorities.
Encouraging appropriate infill and revitalization as a top priority
will allow Fayetteville to maintain its unique character and mini-
mize the impacts of sprawl. There are numerous areas through-
out the City where opportunities for appropriate infill develop-
ment exist. By making infill a priority, the City should also consider
mechanisms to ensure quality development and promote appropri-
ate development that reflects the existing community character of
Fayetteville's neighborhoods. In order to realize appropriate infill
development and revitalization opportunities, it is necessary for
the City to inventory and map the locations of vacant or underuti-
lized land. The City can then promote the inventoried opportunities
to new investors.
Examples of residential and
commercial infill & revitalization
souwsQox wxue umrfl SU(L I
Objectives:
a. Allow as -of -right development in
designated locations
As -of -right development in infill locations can lower the
cost of development by removing uncertainty and speed-
ing the approval process. The best way to achieve as -of -
right development is to prepare specific area plans and
revise the land development regulations to allow for the
type of growth and development the community desires.
b. Recognize the benefits and cost savings of utility
and road infrastructure that exists in the core of
the city and develop a fee structure that benefits
infill over greenfield development
Impact fees must have a rational nexus to the actual
impact of development. The current fee structure is
the same for infill as for greenfield development placed
far from the urban core. Dispersed development re-
quires more infrastructure per unit resulting in higher
per unit costs, and additional maintenance costs.
Development in the city core has access to existing
infrastructure that is already available and currently
maintained. T?[L.
definitely impacts from
encourages wa in
a ransit use that
r uces the burden on
the exls m r
ion system, a lower fee
or exemption may be
warranted.
I .e
fir:
I 4
�� a
T
'flit „j
. t
�p
r
'..
: WALKER PARK NEIGHBORHOOD
--, ILLUSTRATIVE MASTER PLAN
FAl'R'1'fi.VILLEARRANSA5
Uptown 2006
c. Convert shopping centers & commercial corridors to
mixed -use centers, adding residences, offices, 8 lodging
The infill of existing centers and corridors allows the economic re-
capture of land value for the developer while producing develop-
ment that shortens trips for residents and uses existing infrastruc-
ture. This strategy for converting shopping centers into mixed -use
centers has been used by national developers and shopping center
owners. A variety of uses creates the ability to live, work, shop
and have daily needs and services met within walking distance.
It is important to encourage and provide more opportunities for
people to live and work in the City. Encouraging a balance of
people living and working in the same area has several benefits,
including: less daily trips that rely on the regional road network;
increased support for local businesses; and a greater variety of
housing options for Fayetteville residents.
Uptown 2030
Fiesta Square 2006
Mission ft Crossover 2006
Ii' -,--
-
f
f}; 1
MA
PLAN
?0304
d. Promote densest development around logical future transit stops
an
Transit requires density. In a study undertaken for the Portland Metro Area Westside
Light Rail, a literature review demonstrated that mode capture was greatest within _
walking distance of the station (30 percent) and fell off as distance increased with very
low capture outside of a mile radius unless park -and -ride facilities were provided. The
implication is that providing transit requires the greatest concentration of housing and _
jobs to be within walking distance of transit stations. For this purpose, such devel-
opment should be within a quarter -mile of the transit facility. If transit is to serve a
regional function, the densest development should be located in the vicinity of transit
stations to ensure an effective and well -used system.
e. Reinvest in parks, streets, & civic buildings within the heart of the city
The tree -lined streets, parks, and historic civic
buildings found in Fayetteville's older neighbor-
hoods greatly contribute to the unique community
character and high quality of life that residents
treasure. Preservation of our tree -lined streets
and parks and adaptive reuse of our historic civic
buildings will maintain the community's cultural
identity.
Reinvestment in the City core
lase
['
J
Ha
JE $ LAP
ph
lAY
PlAN
X030 i
f. Encourage historic preservation 8 adaptive re -use of buildings
Historic preservation is crucial in retaining a community's character, identity, and
evolution. Preservation and restoration can be an effective tool for economic
development and revitalization, achieving urban sustainability through reducing waste
and emissions, and maintaining property values. Recent calculations indicate that it r
takes 35 to 50 years for a new energy efficient building to save the amount of energy r
lost in demolishing an existing building (National Trust for Historic Preservation).
Preservation and adaptive reuse of Fayetteville's historically significant structures
and landscapes should be encouraged and achieved by a variety of methods, such as
public education and outreach, establishing local historic districts, accepting facade
easements, and amending the City's zoning and development regulations.
Eason
g. Encourage new development that supports and complements the
unique characteristics and economic values of employment clusters
in and around downtown, thellof A. the north end, the rail
corridor, Drake Field and the Industrial Park.
• �I �+, +..q may' ++�s + i�Y���4J9��
*:a
®JURTn'� ariaity ,tt'�rili]3�]i1N
a.
''•III r �os'g.i f i�,a-..+�. •I�.
li�1+y9 +a�,e'6+vJ�o i. _f.,io ipp rf
+ qCi �1� �
4 stli Y 'le l
i a�
{! r
•J 1 !7 ,+ L ' --
.J w +svawno� .3O 4
Fayette Junction Illustrative Plan showing !rQ
mixed use/transit oriented development -��_'» �?.�� — -
h. Determine feasibility of a tiered impact I i'
fee system. _ , s .:, •- .
A tiered impact fee system requires new development 'r4'
to pay its proportionate share of the costs to the
municipality associated with providing necessary
public services to the development based on its location. Phoenix, Arizona,
Bellevue, Washington, Kansas City, Missouri and Conway, Arkansas have all
implemented an impact fee system where the fee varies depending on where PLAN
the development is proposed. 1'
Goal 2- we-i. it discourage suburban sprawl.
As Fayetteville's population continues to increase, the city must continue to work
with the community and enact regulations to discourage suburban sprawl. For de-
cades, zoning practices have supported a separation of land uses; in doing so, devel-
opment has spread across the natural landscape and made people solely dependent
on the automobile to get from here to there. The impacts of sprawl have caused
increased traffic congestion, as well as health problems relating to obesity and the
lack of highly walkable places in communities. To counter suburban sprawl, the city
should employ a Smart Growth strategy for handling new development. This up-
date to the Comprehensive Plan is a step in the right direction for combating sprawl.
Based on input received from the community throughout the planning process, it is
apparent that Fayetteville residents want to maintain a high quality of life and sup-
port increased growth in the center of the city and limit growth on the edges of the
city.
PLAN
2U 4
Objectives:
a. Pursue a transfer of development rights program, or other tools
that compensate land owners for land preservation
Transfer of development rights can be used to reimburse property owners
whose land is better used for open space, institutional use or low density
by allowing the sale of density rights to parcels where the higher density is
desired. This is important because it allows the City to zone density selectively
where it is desired while compensating property owners whose land would
otherwise have gone into suburban development in far-flung or inappropriate
locations.
b. Develop alternative development patterns that encourage efficient
use of land at the edge of the city, or in newly annexed areas
Development techniques such as conservation subdivisions allow the same
number of homes as a conventional subdivision, often with reduced
infrastructure costs, while also preserving open space, valuable farm land, and
natural resources. i ,.•,_.. .
c. Direct capital improvements into infrastructure that encourages and
supports infill and revitalization
Replacing and upgrading aged infrastructure in the core of the city provides
improved service and fire protection for residents and businesses.. Additionally,
these Improvements • can provide: afnancial Incentive for revitalization projects
instead of extending new services into greenfield areas.
d. Maximum City influence over development and preservation in
outlying unincorporated areas
ft
"'fir :.•- .....
by1�'�
�• a
Source: "Conservation nesibn
for Subdivvisions" by
Randall G. Arendt
Ii
Vt'
1830 The Orginal Plat
Hill
19go's Hill Districts
& I
Fayetteville's growth over time. Images courtesy of University of Arkansas Community Design Center.
Iifll Between the Hill
't' cif
�'�-+f4
Y�
`//
_
'
S3.
.
yr,
60'30 Sprawl C5y 3ceariL
PLAN
MDid
Goal 3: We will make traditional town form the standard.
As cities grow, it is natural to add or fill-in existing neighborhoods and to build new neighborhoods.
Whether completing an existing neighborhood or creating a new one, it is important to keep the
entire neighborhood unit in mind - meaning, you don't just create a single use development, but
that you create a place that has more of the things that people need every day. A complete neigh-
borhood contains not just houses, but a mix of uses that are adaptable for change over time. The
houses that are included are not just one type; they are a range of housing types that occur on a
variety of lot sizes. A variety of uses within a neighborhood creates the ability to live, work, shop
and have daily needs and services within walking distance. As we look to the future of Fayetteville,
it is important to encourage and provide more opportunities for people to Live and work in the same
area. Encouraging a balance of people living and working in the same area has several benefits,
including: less daily trips that rely on the regional road network; increased support for local busi-
nesses; and new and older homes can provide a greater variety of housing options for Fayetteville.
.1 Qtr
- ' 1:
iu -_ Jan � , - ° 1 -,`"1
1
~*i°�aE
r� y:
�
�y
,V•i6F
`
•1
X941 �,_ lla�
e9. lil rH
t� �
i1 j
u�v��l��
The Transect- See Illustration p. 10-16
The Transect is a system of ordering human habitats in a range from the most natural to the most
urban. The SmartCode is based upon six Transect Zones which describe the physical character of
place at any scale, according to the density and intensity of land use and urbanism. These are
administratively similar to the landuse zones in conventional codes, except that in addition to
"City
the usual building use, density, height, and setback requirements, other elements of the intended
habitat are integrated, including those of the private lot and building and the enfronting public
streetscape. The elements are determined by their location on the transect scale.
430 ,
Complete and Connected, Greenfield Development
Objectives:
Co..reoiS
a. Require new growth that results in neighborhoods, districts and
corridors that are:
1. compact - via denser housing; meaningful open spaces &
preserves; small blocks
2. complete - via varied housing; mixed uses; civic uses;
jobs -housing mix in the neighborhoods
3. connected - via street -oriented buildings; interconnected
streets; interconnected greenways & trails
Compact Greenfield Development
Ap.rtn...b
•m.u.,T..m
`
lY� �1�:• a r�nE
i� • '�- " �
r ^ ,
r� 1 � � e7.r� � I �
+'
.;
r _
NI
Y
700
_
_-
_ {�_ _ ^i'
b. Prepare a transit -worthy community: densify in highly walkable
areas along logical future transit routes, and anticipate rail, street cars
and other alternative transit modes
Vision for North & Leveret, 2030
c. Increase the viability of businesses by leveraging the economic performance
of appealing environments that are mixed -use, walkable, and integrated
th
w► green space
Ii
flc_j _SL
Mixed Infill. From the Fayette Junction Master Plan
• CITY
. � �y �' �i4T
as hf a��, �� � �� �
I
1
Y. 'fir -•I � _ •�
�Lr
Dickson Street and West Ave,
10-15 www.accessfayettevitte.org/government/planning/City_Plan_2030
t.
.._...._........,__...._LOGE GANERRiG PLACES REGIONAL INSTI RIONS._...._____,__
PARKS t GREENS PLAZAS & SOGARES_._...._._—
Transect System Illustrated: Elements that determine urbanism exist in a range that can correspond to the gradient of the Transect
Most of the elements listed here are addressed in the SmanCode prescriptions.
(RURAL IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII TR A N Sp I' 'I' IIIIIIIIIIIII III LIIII IIno n A �.
. —ir tl �
All FE ,Fc
E
I
yi
Yn 1fl1
�
�Iwv.�9a1
.s.nim
_
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
rcir A Y
g030 A
Goal 4: We will grow a livable
transportation network.
In proposing to add 37,000 residents while
maintaining the character of Fayetteville,
transportation and congestion are of great concern
to residents and businesses. To plan for the future
of Fayetteville, the City must consider a multimodat
transportation network.
CD
Efficient transit depends upon nodes or concen- T
f
trations of population and employment that can yr
be served efficiently. At the same time, creating _
nodes of development is greatly enhanced by the i' r
addition of transit. In studying over 60 transit -
oriented development areas, it was found that
residents and businesses are willing to pay a pre-
mium to locate adjacent to fixed guideway transit,
even if they don't use it.' Transit can thus become
a toot in the arsenal of economic development to
provide incentives for employers and developers
to locate in an area. As part of a regional strategy,
the city that best makes use of the opportunities
of transit by locating transit to capture regional
markets can solidify its position in providing en -
tertainment, arts, restaurants, and employment
centers within proximity of multiple amenities that are less available in auto -oriented
development. The implication is that if Fayetteville plans for transit and installs the pre-
requisite development, Fayetteville will become the originating hub for transit when funding is
available. The strategic importance of this cannot be overstated. Transit allows the creation of
employment centers and entertainment and arts districts that can serve an entire region rather
than just the local market.
T',
1
•—Y
IT
'This is ca.mSr i`e. On a per squat botbais, retail and olfirz ren6 y ie app0ximakly len DaoentMflr space oWMe the star on sea, v k
resider" varied gre but appeaed b have at least a Stem penzntinaease in value. Hilsboio Westside WM Rai 5hdy, Leland Cons,tig GraM and ERA, 1994
i)�
rLA
PN
?Mao I
Objectives:
a. Community design should precede and outrank traffic planning
To achieve urban places that encourage (and thrive with) r,
pedestrians as part of the mobility mix, the patterns of � 4
proposed development must be specified first, during the, `
community planning stage.
Land use decisions
should be the first
priorities for cities,
with suitable trans-
portation planning to
follow. Then, trans- 1'
portation plans for
balanced mobility . -
can be crafted with
4 -
all modes of travel
being considered.' -
b. Make walkable, cyclist -friendly road designs with slow design speeds,
and block -and -street layouts the standard; walkability
is part of the street function
As new streets
are added or
existing streets
are improved,
walkability can
be maintained
through careful
application of
walkable street
sections.
p/ w✓,naa purl o he pin. lfmrsrwlr.. wttt aYI usbbbwd.la't b,— n.url inn[) r E'4Yay.rlkt
f1UJ'ilson� dll9sItj9.M1
xI t VtF. vur� ct 4 Uc k
5 i7euu l lu
Wlur..e ow two kart f vatic pkai m4rkvWei ..
1) CoUeye A-.
xl tr?-++'I�iny lot in-I-iesl�SwrN.
wbrr, 3 tct4R-irap-Co>1l Cresai"rsne'J
lkzl illay{cal ovd darulcrzws
Mav mlr¢-laro.N the nrA a.wid ticm avwudtl�e ss �'�Cop-a�o�,�rycure��
What factors contribute
to an excellent
pedestrian experience?
Observations fi design
experience suggest the
following prioritized
features.
1.
Small Block Size
2.
Buildings Fronting the
Street
3.
Mixed Land Use
4.
Lower Traffic Speeds
5.
On -street Parking
6.
Interconnected Streets
7.
Sidewalks
8.
Lower Traffic Volumes
9.
Street Trees
CITY
2030
c. Plan It construct multiple corridors instead
of single oversized ones
An interconnected network of streets offers motor-
ists a variety of options to get from one destination
to the next. Generally, more streets per square
mite result in a more open network and drivers
can avoid the degree of peak hour congestion that
occurs when a limited number of large streets
become congested. Two two -Lane roads are bet-
ter that one four -lane road. Traffic can be easily
dispersed within a road network, rather than all
motorists having to depend on one major thorough-
fare.
1910 Sanborn Map, Downtown Fayetteville
City Plan 2030 _
Master Street Plan -�
P f_••.-
iL.
PLA
?O301
d. Transform existing corridors into great streets: tree -
lined, moderate speed, multi -modal, good addresses
More than any other feature, streets define a community's character. "Great
streets" are walkable, accessible to all, interesting, comfortable, safe, and
memorable. While great streets accommodate vehicular and pedestrian trav-
el, they are also signature public spaces. Great streets showcase high quality
buildings; mixed -use streets provide good addresses for sustainable commerce
while residential streets are key to livability in neighborhoods.
Fulbright Expressway, 2030
e. Develop context sensitive corridor plans for major thoroughfares.
Major thoroughfares are intended to carry heavy traffic volumes, often at high
speeds. However, thoroughfares connecting regions vary in context greatly from
those that exist within the city. Often these streets travel through established
neighborhoods, dense urban environments, or even rural communities. Each of these
should be designed to facilitate the necessary traffic volumes, but with respect to
the surrounding environment.
LAN
2Udi
f. Commit to evolving a rich menu of transit choices, including citywide
and regional mass transit
P.r .linl lnr p \f,\ Nl•YI r.µ.r No:l Trn.11 y.lm
.I N,wi�wlfnl:.x'.oa oM'
.)..W .-. alct.�nn.w..p`jyK•mNMr+9re
w ww.n vra �tin•.rwlu.r�vaYar.rllur nnv'a+✓nr i.r. p.l r+n�
IWI, [nrxiwx.Ha\ttMlerxa.n.q.Y.
0wmmw~yµwuyyry.Yr�a'YYla.yie W.mis.Or'• I.. vlu.
,.i.._.�w.- [.l.l r...�nM1rli• YIN -.J `!_:
.!vlua y�n..�w+r+—• eaiw
. xM•.,.. wi�rn . viva hsaamur�wnxamN.wn-
uaw.".n�T ium.�ayu.. un"'nw:.wi., i'�",: -y�,`.-.
V .al n newY�1.Mznwn�a�k.y+\!
Public Transit
V
g. Develop a partnership with the Arkansas & Missouri Railroad
The Arkansas & Missouri Railroad has an established 139 -mile rail corridor, providing
services to communities from Fort Smith to Missouri. Railroads provide opportunities to
transport raw materials and goods without using already congested roadways. And unlike
the highway and interstate systems, railroads don't depend on governments to maintain
or improve infrastructure. There is approximately seven miles of railroad within the
City of Fayetteville, providing opportunities for economic development now, and through
cooperation with the railroad, additional opportunities in the future.
161 Ik.
P1q r
2030 i
h. Plan employment in locations with access to walkable amenities and transit
rather than in isolated locations
i. Expand and interconnect the sidewalk and trail system at the neighborhood,
citywide, and regional levels
CO o1 Fayedevll%. AR
Master Trail Plan
Fayettevllk A3temative Transportation S Tnds Master Plan (FAIT Plan)
`Lf �•
I . -'• WHWYfi2
,1 d
rb •..
— PWX�W
�:` 1�]'`' Ala L'Z�r,•I
TIDNRO -� P.n
y1¢�m ff feew
L 1 ~- 'ryJ� f.l.lurX.GBIM.
rJ 1
s -I -J 1.. 1' ��fmLIWN�
_ I.
Master Trail Plan
Fadating Proposed
/—Wimrry / Pnmuv
/ $eeantla7 / Secondary
'-Lewr / —Local
'-Srmw ualuye -' S!rnl Llnbge
'PLAN
?ago 4
Goal 5: We will assemble an enduring green network.
"The Enduring Green Network connects people and nature through a mapped system of
trails and green infrastructure. This network recognizes and assembles the ecological
assets in Fayetteville that need to be preserved while providing a lasting connected
corridor for wildlife. The strength, function and appreciation of the Enduring Green
Network will develop over time as our community experiences these natural areas and
distinct ecosystems." (Description based on public feedback during City Plan 2030 public Input sessions.)
The natural environment, and connections with the environment, is part of what makes
Fayetteville special. Residents treasure the quality of life associated with living in a
place that offers magnificent views and a variety of recreational opportunities. The
natural environment of Fayetteville needs to be properly preserved and enhanced. The
City of Fayetteville community needs to increase efforts to protect the natural land-
scape, increase parks and trails, and preserve long views across open green spaces.
A green network helps maintain the community character and quality of life that makes
Fayetteville the great city that it is today, and contributes to the economic success and
stability of the City. Fayetteville must compete with other cities in the region for popu-
lation, jobs, and retail sales. It has a number of assets unavailable to the other cities in-
cluding the University of Arkansas, the Walton Arts Center, Dickson Street, and an intact
city core area that is improving and strengthening. One of Fayetteville's overwhelming
differences from other cities is the character and quality of the environmental setting.
As such, nurturing this setting is of economic benefit to the city, as a quality environ-
ment confers value and attracts residents who all get to share in the common
amenity. If the City chooses unregulated development that strips away the
natural setting or reserves pieces of it for only a select few, it will lose one of
its advantages in the regional economic competition. Since this environment is
one of the advantages that distinguish Fayetteville from other cities, it can be
an important factor in marketing the unique quality of life to future residents
and employers.
LAS
?030 i
Objectives:
a. Vigilantly nurture a continuum of
greenspace, including:
1. riparian buffer areas
2. canopy restoration and protection
3. small neighborhood parks, squares,
commons and greenbelts
4. major parks and recreation facilities
5. greenways and traits
6. Large-scale preserves for preserving
hillsides, protecting natural habitats and
water quality, and scenic vistas
b. Strategically plan for and acquire
land that can be incorporated
into the Enduring Green Network
c. Promote conservation easements
and alternative development
patterns that encourage efficient
use of land
City of Fayetteville Parks
- r r
X11—'
- •----
• .te(`;.
Laka
/L _ _ ��Mqa Shat
Q CO a Fryenrme
N
Fayetteville 's Enduring Green Network
PLAY
20301
City of Fayetteville
Enduring Green Network
/
(3 EM'i9 We4a NDMOrk \. Major 2 eelV
Tntl Srear
SN Park U wrsRy Properly
r . j Lak! r CT/ pf FsYMMvlIa
$ream
c t00year FlOudplrlr
The Enduring Green Network (EGN) map was created by highlighting existing natural resources, including
the 100 year floodplain, parks, and trails, as well as the region's ecological and geographical features
that the 2010 Fayetteville Natural Heritage Association Green Infrastructure study found to be important
to functioning natural systems. The EGN was mapped as a broad boundary for use in locating possible
properties within that could eventually become a continuous network of greenspace and trails. As the P!
EGN is realized it will likely be a narrow corridor connecting larger open spaces. This map will be used
as one of many tools to inform planners on land use decisions, park planners during the parkland acquisi- N
tion process, and a guide for planning future trail corridors, as well as a resource for policy makers to 2U30
prioritize land for preservation or conservation.
Goal 6: We will create opportunities for attainable housing. 1
Attainable housing typically refers to housing needed by those who make more
than the income limit established for federal subsidies but still struggle in the
current housing market. Rising land costs coupled with rapid growth in Fayetteville
has resulted in a gap between the supply of attainable housing and the demand.
Housing also forms neighborhood identity and contributes to a sense of place.
Creating opportunities for a variety of housing types, sizes and densities in all of
Fayetteville's neighborhoods will help to accommodate a diverse population that
significantly impacts the City's growing economy, preserve the City's sense of
place, and meet our community's evolving housing needs.
Z o n i n g
District
Dwelling Typeis)
Percentage of Residential
Zoned land 2010
RSF-4
Single- or Two-family
77.3%
RSF-7
Single-orTwo-family
0.3%
RSF-8
Single- orTwo-family
1.18%
NC
Single-, Two-, or Three-family
1.17%
RT-12
Single-, Two-, or Three-family
1.96%
RMF-6
Single-, Two-, Three-, or Multi -family
0.45%
RMF-12
Single-, Two-, Three-, or Multi -family
0.58%
RMF-18
Single-, Two-, Three-, or Multi -family
0.15%
RMF-24
Single-, Two-, Three-, or Multi -family
14.7%
RMF-40
Single-, Two-, Three-, or Multi -family
2.1%
Residential Zoning Acreges in Fayetteville 2010
(AN
PL
2U3U 4
Objectives:
a. Increase housing choices by encouraging a mixture of housing types and sizes and
disperse throughout the city.
Varied housing types promote mixed -income neighborhoods and vibrant communities where
attainable housing does not exist in isolation. These neighborhoods reflect traditional urban
neighborhoods where households of varying economic means are integrated in the same
neighborhood, allowing residents to age in place.
b. Maintain the quality and quantity of existing attainable housing.
The City of Fayetteville contains a number of homes that due to the size and date of
construction are relatively affordable to own - compared to constructing a similar sized unit
with today's land and construction costs. However, older housing units are not usually energy
efficient, and without proper care, will begin to decrease in quality. Allowing these homes to
fall into disrepair can force families to leave, resulting in the loss of their primary investment.
Dilapidated homes can also hurt values for surrounding properties and even entire
neighborhoods.
c. Establish partnerships with non-profit and private entities to facilitate the
development of attainable workforce housing.
Planning tools address a component of an attainable housing solution. A comprehensive ap-
proach to increasing the attainable housing available requires multiple partnerships among the
public, non-profit and private sectors. However, attainable housing should not be grouped or
focused in any particular area of the city, and should always respect the scale of surrounding
developments.
d. Make housing relatively more affordable by influencing cost of living items such as
utilities and transportation.
Complete, compact and connected neighborhoods are pedestrian -friendly and provide everyday
services within walking distance, allowing residents to reduce transportation costs, which
could positively affect their ability to obtain housing. Likewise, programs that.support energy
efficient housing and home energy retrofits reduce monthly utility bills and overall cost -of -living
expenses.
SY
PLAN A
Action Steps:
Action steps are specific measures that the City pursues to implement the above stated goals
and policies. While some action steps are ongoing, most have an identifiable time frame for
completion in the next five years.
or limitations for development. (Goals 1 4 & 6
The City should designate areas within the current city boundaries for developing neighborhood
and corridor plans. By working with the community to establish a clear vision for each sector of
the city, a plan and corresponding revision to the land development regulations could be adopted.
By adopting a plan and code that the community supports, as -of -right development could be
supported. Complete neighborhood plans in the core of Fayetteville could also be used to provide
density bonuses for developers who designate a percentage of their development for attainable
housing or "green" buildings.
Evaluate the intent of the nonconforming section of the Unified Development Code,
and �rovide opportunities forpreservation and creative reuse of existing buildings
that contribute to neighborhood character. (Goals I & 2)
Modify water and sewer growth models based on the Future Land Use May. (Goals 1 & 2)
compatible. (Goals 1. 3. 4 & 6)
Appropriate regulations that are supportive of community endorsed planning policies can
encourage development by providing clarity and certainty. A zoning process that requires additional
hearings and variances increases the risk of time and money to developers but has not proven
effective in guaranteeing the desired results. By establishing clear standards that support the City's
vision and providing a visual guide to design criteria, investors can be certain that their project will
be approved if they follow the rules.
A Form -Based Code is a land development regulatory tool that places primary emphasis on the
physical form of the built environment with the end goal of producing a specific type of "place".
PLAN
203D J
Conventional zoning primarily controls land use, through abstract regulatory statistics, which can
result in very different physical environments. The base principle of form -based coding is that
design is more important than use. Simple and clear graphic prescriptions for building height,
how a building is placed on its site, and building elements are used to manage development.
Land use is not ignored but regulated using broad parameters that can better respond to market
economics, while also prohibiting incompatible uses.
A Form -Based district would allow as -of -right development of property in congruence with
standards set forth in the code. The new code would streamline the process of getting projects
approved because of the investment in public process and consensus that the code incorporates.
Utilize the Historic District Commission. (Goals 1.2 & 3) fl
Utilize the Historic District Commission as a resource for public outreach, establishing and
expanding National Register historic districts, and incorporating historic preservation in the City's
design regulations for infill and new development in historic neighborhoods. Create incentives for
preserving and reusing existing historic structures.
Explore the possibility of establishing local historic districts for properties that do not qualify
for the National Register of Historic Places but still embody local historic significance. Lead by
example - establish local ordinance districts to preserve existing historic City -owned structures.
Adopt a tiered impact fee system. (Goals 1& 2)
A tiered impact fee system requires new development to pay its proportionate share of the
costs to the municipality associated with providing necessary public services to the development
based on its location. Phoenix, Arizona, Bellevue, Washington, Kansas City, Missouri and Conway,
Arkansas have all implemented an impact fee system where the fee varies depending on where the
development is proposed.
A transfer of development rights (TDR) program uses market forces to promote conservation in high
value natural or open space areas while encouraging density or infill development in designated
areas. TDR programs have been utilized around the country since 1980, and 22 states have
enacted legislation to support TDR programs, while 6 currently have proposed legislation. In a TDR
program, a community identifies an area within its boundaries that it would like to see protected
from development (the sending zone) and another area where the community desires more urban
PLAY
?ono A
style development (the receiving zone). Landowners in the sending zone are allocated a number
of development credits that can be sold to developers or the community itself. In return for
selling their development credits, the landowner in the sending zone agrees to place a permanent
conservation easement on his or her land. Meanwhile, the purchaser of the development credits
can apply them to develop at a higher density than otherwise allowed on property within the
receiving zone.
Develop a conservation development ordinance, or other development form for rural
Conservation neighborhoods and other flexible site design techniques allow for the development
of housing, streets and utilities in a more economical and efficient manner, and consume less open
land, protect wildlife habitat, waterways, natural resources and agricultural lands.
The City's current development regulations do little to discourage development in the Planning
Area, currently allowing up to four units per acre, a quarter of the size currently permitted in
the County. However, the County's one acre minimum may be varied, allowing much denser
development in areas that typically lack the infrastructure necessary to support auto -dependent
suburban development. Additionally, these developments may result in additional utility
infrastructure maintenance, and eventually lead to the City annexing individual or community
septic systems.
The Capital Improvement Plan and Transportation Improvement Bond Program are important
planning and development tools that address major capital improvements of the City. However,
these programs, if not thoroughly analyzed, may have the unintended consequence of subsidizing
development in rural areas that are not in line with the policies of City Plan 2030.
City staff should put forward proposals for funding that reflect the policies and goals of City
Plan, directing investments into areas where growth is not only being encouraged, but where
redevelopment is expected and existing infrastructure is inadequate to support new growth.
Identify existing properties that are vacant or prime for redevelopment and initiate
The city must promote infill, revitalization and traditional town form. Strip commercial
development encouraged by conventional zoning has been the predominant development
PLAN
Zoaa 4
form for the last 50 years. Major thoroughfares such as College Avenue, Martin Luther King Jr.
Boulevard, and South School Ave. are prime examples of this form, but there is much opportunity
for redevelopment now and in the future. The first step is to inventory and map the locations of
vacant or underutilized property, and properties where buildings are approaching the end of their
lifespan. Individual property owners should then be contacted and provided information regarding
development opportunities. The City should also publicize these redevelopment opportunities and
offer incentives for rezoning to form -based districts.
The Fayetteville Expressway Economic Development Corridor is the most congested travel corridor
in the region, carrying over 166,000 vehicles per day. The Corridor is generally bound on the
north by Great House Springs Road/Main Street, on the west by Interstate 1-540, on the east by
North College Avenue, and the south by Millsap/Futrall Avenue. Public and private investment
within this area would increase land value, generating "great addresses" and allow the area to
accommodate multiple modes of travel.
r
Division recuirements. (Goal 3 & 4)
such as the Fayetteville Industrial Park. (Goal 4)
Include public transportation providers in the design Dhase of new street ro -ects and
determine if there is a current or future need for benches. shelters.or bus urn -o ifs.
(Goal 4)
Local transportation providers often have funds available for amenities that promote and improve
public transportation services. However, it is often more challenging and expensive to add these
facilities to existing streets. Therefore, consideration should be given to these facilities during the
design of new streets, or major street improvements.
Develop a system of metrics for the city citjtto evaluate and prioritize properties for
inclusion in the enduring green network. (Goal 5)
Grow the Community Revolving Loan Fund to a value that allows the energy efficiency
funds. (Goal 6)
Develop educational materials for homeowners. describing benefits and opportunities
for improving energy efficiency and reducing monthly utility costs. (Goal 6)
Utilizing public meetings, town hall events, the Local Government Channel, appointed committees,
and other outreach methods, City staff will educate residents on energy efficiency opportunities
from local, state, and national sources. Opportunities include Federal tax credits and state
rebates for energy efficiency and renewable energy, low income weatherization programs, energy
efficiency rebates through local utilities, and the City's Revolving Loan Fund.
Determine the feasibility of a Local Housing Trust Fund and Land Bank. (Goal 6)
Develop a cottage development ordinance. (Goal 1. 2 & 6)
Cottage developments encourage innovation and variety in housing while ensuring compatibility
with established neighborhoods, and provide opportunities for ownership of detached single-family
dwellings for a population diverse in age, income and household size.
FCi
PMAN
Mid 4
City Plan 2030 Benchmarks
Develop a conservation development ordinance, or other development form for rural
properties, or those with environmentally sensitive features. (Goal 2 & 5)
Increase lot size requirements within the planning area to meet County zoning. (Goal 2)
Develop internal processes to align funding, development and planning of city
infrastructure with the goals of City Plan 2030. (Goal l a 2)
Develop alley design standards and regulations that enable all developers to utilize the
Master Street Plan cross-section while meeting Fire Department and Solid Waste
Division requirements. (Goal3&4).
Identify existing properties that are vacant or prime for redevelopment and initiate
form -based rezoning discussions with property owners. (Goal l,2&3)
Use the Enduring Green Network boundary map as a tool when making decisions on
parkland acceptance and acquisition, off -site tree preservation, and when updating
the Master Trail Plan (Goal 4 a 5)
Develop a system of metrics for the city to evaluate and prioritize properties for
inclusion in the enduring green network. (Goats)
Develop educational materials for homeowners, describing benefits and opportunities
for improving energy efficiency and reducing monthly utility costs. (Goal 6)
Grow the Community Revolving Loan Fund to a value that allows the energy efficiency
program to be expanded to serve the small business and residential sectors, and
pursue new funding that complements the Community Development Block Grant
program, and when necessary, provides staff support to obtain and administer these
funds. (Goal 6)
Develop a cottage development ordinance. (Goal 1, 2 & 6)
Evaluate the intent of the nonconforming section of the Unified Development Code,
and provide opportunities for preservation and creative reuse of existing buildings that
contribute to neighborhood character. (Goal, land 2)
Continue to develop and implement form -based codes that establish clear design
standards and assure neighbors that new development will be desirable and
compatible. (Goal. 1, 3, 4 & 6)
Determine the feasibility of a Local Housing Trust Fund and Land Bank. (Goal 6)
SPLAY
?O3p4
.I i1taNiIiWAIIIWMI.
Utilize the Historic District Commission. (Goal, 1,2 and 3)
Adopt a tiered impact fee system. (Goal, 1 and 2)
Form a coalition of cities and organizations in Arkansas that support a Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) program, and then identify elected officials within the state
legislature to introduce TDR enabling legislation. (Goal 1, 2 a 6)
Evaluate existing street design speed, operating speed and posted speed limits, to
ensure that each is appropriate based on the roadway design and context of the
surrounding environment. (Goal 4)
• •.
JJ
Create a complete neighborhood or street corridor plan every other year utilizing a
charrette process, and analyze water and sewer capacity to identify opportunities or
limitations for development. (Goal 1, 4 ft 6)
Support rezoning proposals that result in increased density around logical future
transit stops, rail corridors and major transportation corridors. (Gool4)
Support development and redevelopment opportunities along the existing rail line and
determine locations for expanding rail service to service industrial destinations such as
the Fayetteville Industrial Park. (Goal 4)
Pursue investment and transformation of the Fayetteville Economic Development
Corridor. (Goal 1, 2 3 4)
Include public transportation providers in the design phase of new street projects and
determine if there is a current or future need for benches, shelters, or bus turn-offs.
(Goal 4)
PLAY
70304
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas
serial view of site looking southwest.
2o2, sec a?izeci + modus
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas 020202 ecialized
CITY PLAN 2030 GOALS:
Goal 1
We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities.
Goal 2
We will discourage suburban sprawl.
Goal 3
We will make traditional town form the standard.
Goal 4
We will grow a livable transportation network.
Goal 5
We will assemble an enduring green network.
Goal 6
We will create opportunities for attainable housing.
+ modus
=-fit''. ;f .: tt5 .= tJ
1
U
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas s1jecLaUd + modus
■
City NaighborhoodAreas:
City Neighborhood Areas are more densely developed than residential neighborhood areas and
provide a varying mix of nonresidential and residential uses. This designation supports the widest
spectrum of uses and encourages density in all housing types, from single family to multifamily. Non
residential uses range In size, variety and intensity from grocery stores and offices to churches, and
are typically located at corners and along connecting corridors. The street network should have a
high number of intersections creating a system of small blocks with a high level of connectivity be-
tween neighborhoods. Setbacks and landscaping are urban in farm with street trees typically being
located within the sidewalk zone.
City Neighborhood Areas encourage complete, compact and connected neighborhoods and are in-
.1.
I'i
tended to serve the residents of Fayetteville, rather than a regional population, While they encourage
p-
dense development patterns, they do recognize existing conventional strip commercial developments
and their potential for future redevelopment in a more efficient urban layout.
Guiding Policies:
a. Protect adjoining properties from the potential adverse impacts associated with
nonresidential uses adjacent to and within residential areas with proper mitigation measures
that address scale, massing, traffic, noise, appearance, lighting, drainage, and effects on
property values.
b. Provide non-residential uses that are accessible for the convenience of individuals living in
residential districts and where compatibility with existing desirable development patterns
r iy
occurs.
!
c. Reduce the length and number of vehicle trips generated by residential development by
IAN
enhancing the accessibility to these areas; encourage walkability as part of the street function.
2O
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas s, o„o,,,,, S ,eC1aII1Zec1 + modus
Neighborhood shopping should be within walking distance of residential use, or approximately
one -quarter mite.
it Encourage developers to designate and plan for mixed -use corners at the time of approval to
property plan for accessibility to these areas.
e- Encourage pedestrian -friendly, mixed -use buildings through the use of transparent glass for
commercial uses at street level and building entrances that address the street.
f. Encourage a block -and -street layout that promotes walkable, cyclist -friendly road designs with
slow design speeds.
g, Encourage mixed -use development that is sensitive to surrounding residential uses and allows
for day and night utilization of available parking.
h. Utilize principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible, livable and
accessible neighborhoods.
I. Encourage properties to redevelop in an urban form.
J. Protect and restore Fayetteville's outstanding residential architecture of all periods and styles.
k. Utilize the Master Street Plan and incorporate bike lanes, parkways and landscaped medians
to preserve the character of the City and enhance the utilization of alternative modes of
transportation.
I. Manage non-residential development within and adjoining residential neighborhoods to
minimize nuisances.
m. Minimize through traffic on minor residential streets, while providing connections between
neighborhoods to encourage openness and neighborliness,
p1A Y
?WdJ
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas C'cia]]_Zect + MOWS
CITY PLAN 2030 FUTURE LAND USE: CITY NEIGHBORHOOD AREA
• City Neighborhood Areas are more densely developed than residential neighborhood
areas and provide a varying mix of nonresidential and residential uses. This designation
supports the widest spectrum of uses and encourages density in all housing types, from
single family to multifamily.
• typically located at corners and along connecting corridors.
• encourage dense development patterns.
• address scale, massing, traffic, noise, appearance, lighting, drainage, and effects on
• property values.
• Reduce the length and number of vehicle trips generated by residential development by
• enhancing the accessibility to these areas; encourage walkability as part of the street
function.
• Encourage properties to redevelop in an urban form.
• Utilize the Master Street Plan and incorporate bike lanes, parkways and landscaped
medians to preserve the character of the City and enhance the utilization of alternative
modes of transportation.
city neighborhood
2
• 3
.!!
I
{� [fir _ _ - r 4
a.E1pi Ys
1
�v
I�JI}Jyj
l'.4+�i
La
lli! ,E
f
i
� r I
f4
extera$iQ-ed western suppclrt ;
edge of campus , buffer
' r — _ n
I r 4 '
yy
I t a 11
` i
----------------
•T,_ .+
institutional buffer .It� I
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas w 2020121 Specialized + modus
IoduS
original vs. current.
original plan: 222 units current plan: 122 units
650 beds 450 beds
•
111111, f '
ri.
i
M I �I
project Cleveland I Fayetteville, arkansas sDeC1aJJzed +
original vs. current.
modus
scale + density reduction at request of city and neighborhood
project Cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas
City of Fayetteville Engineering
Summary of Traffic Studies:
The methods of trip generation used by each traffic engineer, while
slightly different, are based on standard trip generation methods.
Adjustments to the trips from standard values are supported
by recent studies of college housing, and the adjustments are
conservative compared to study results.
2
The studies generally agreed on the distribution of trips to the street
network, where the majority of trips will be made on Cleveland Street
toward Garland Ave. The studies do not estimate an appreciable
Increase In traffic on Cleveland Street west of Razorback Road.
3
Overall, the development's impact to traffic on surrounding streets is
not significant, and levels of service on surrounding streets will remain
as they exist today.
4
Pedestrian levels are expected to increase significantly, and both studies
recommended improvements to accommodate the increased pedestrian
load.
specialized i + modus
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas a.•,,..,,,.=..o,.o�,,,
TRAFFIC STUDY 01:
PERFORMED:
ADDITIONAL STUDIES:
specialized + modus
MARCH 13-15, 2012
MAY 3-4, 2012
OO
PROJECTED AVERAGE INCREASE: AM PEAK: . 7
TRAFFIC STUDY 02:
PERFORMED:
AflOl
PM PEAK: O
MAY 1,2012
OO
PROJECTED AVERAGE INCREASE: AM PEAK:
1 OO
PM PEAK: I.
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas s1jecializeci + modus
ENDURING BENEFITS OF PROJECT CLEVELAND
• the neighborhood as a whole becomes more walkable
• managing 5 acres of runoff and stormwater problems
• utilizing and improving existing infrastructure (counteract urban sprawl, save city money)
• transit oriented development (in preparation for future transit development)
• $187,000 in millage revenue to public schools, with minimal additional student burden
• property values will raise
• improved fire protection for adjacent neighborhood areas
• improved and safer infrastructure of sidewalks, street lights, crosswalks and parking
• public parks and greenspace for the enjoyment of pedestrians
• providing safe routes to school for college and elementary students
• traffic calming on west Cleveland Street (from Garland Avenue to Sang Avenue)
existing conditions
a ii
ikO' - +
I ri st
f*
'II
' -
. Fri
:: - i3=l7F .Y ill t
project cleveland footprint
P
It!c I:; - I I .,fl
{ �'I J .l
• :lt 1-1�Sf alp ? ~
M1 , tf:
4_R
Ele1fl PPS -
xisttiing-sidewalk replaced
+ 7 with new 5' concrete walk i
"^
C ______ existing sloe Ik replact Jh_ ' �` a
with ne 5' [ete w k c f
on-streetrp9[A Y
, 'v,4 �. •� II iii. qy
r;
TF
r : Is :
� �r n
r
1
.
M7t Y a
7 -=k- -.- f ''
_ --- 4 i:��f i.�rlTii�a2�a�r „n ry}y lMaa I� i,
„� move dao&rous cro$ �V�iki .L:t 3J 1
5 Y
CDE
v ' rt -r
r ks,
r, lli, rril_ �F ..a 1 a cr
i i ,!bioswale for conveyance of tre r
stormwater runoff ^ j — r nt I_
0 N! ? infiltration planter used to treat Sys'
�F and cha net tormwater runoff d! r
undergrouhd detest rtr
manage i e ouh�i {�
filtratiora_af stOrmw�thr rl& d Uy ', ',
. T
back Intg the rexigtmg waii;r fl
w y- 'l+ 't srr •.y
S r i.yf
-iJ flv LrR , _
t .
bioretention facilities utilize sandy AE , ili
soils and native vegitation to filter
r.! I
pollutants from stormwater runoff i I S
s
- 1 .
I'
ii
— _,i � fir_i' .
SLg9r
T
�r
I[ f e Ili�11�311"I L,. , s f' '`
I��,
r �I
33 ¢f
- °eservafiio ar en
•re%
e
x k'
:4. tiR r.
1 yJ;
4
JYvi
rYx 1!, I �J fIC � r� FY_.—.✓ �� •rr !` r � � fY td:�
lae M ' e II ,
ii . :
l ,I � —
' r
wl: k
ree preServat4i ga1Cic!?
- :1
6" line replace$ with 8" line
extended. nOrthf9154inear feet to
Weddin'4ton Drive intersection
_ _•'
-
r
' upgraded water lines i, U + i
- - ,.key r• 1 J. -.
o 469 fine 1het of 6" Tine -- - -o - " f
replacSvvith 'line f f !
^Fi N
9 312 linear feet of 6" line �1 -,�-
r " {� rep{aced wih e" a ' {{
f 8 ?reservpu14 ga1en 14
`'
new bike lanes
_____shared bike_la_ne`
^
c9_ dedicated bike lane
'
't
1
........ ......3h
I L -♦
• .1.
I.
. I'.
Ji '+tj )i I:
,�
_
- 1 (e YwY
1''
v
nets
:r n1preservafign garden
'
•
ipgraded,vyeter'li4esj :-
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas sfeciai±ed + modus
ENDURING BENEFITS OF PROJECT CLEVELAND
• the neighborhood as a whole becomes more walkable
• managing 5 acres of runoff and stormwater problems
• utilizing and improving existing infrastructure (counteract urban sprawl, save city money)
• transit oriented development (in preparation for future transit development)
• $187,000 in millage revenue to public schools, with minimal additional student burden
• property values will raise
• improved fire protection for adjacent neighborhood areas
• improved and safer infrastructure of sidewalks, street lights, crosswalks and parking
• public parks and greenspace for the enjoyment of pedestrians
• providing safe routes to school for college and elementary students
• traffic calming on west Cleveland Street (from Garland Avenue to Sang Avenue)
. ,,f 'CCCCl++++
EXISTING HALL AVENUE RENTAL HOUSES
Thursday, June i4'"
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas
view
sped alized modus
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas „a�, e ,a�,l Sp2Cl 1zecI + rl-1(-)dt..js
campus edge containment diagram.
Tire Canpao Edge done provdes an appiWnale coerrealan
Oelaieeneerodlirereel yet compeleble cats erIe ae.rg he
denselrreerll.r.aneascempua and laeoelerhengllebrrel
deny hauningeceaseclrcrr emrwnd he campus This cane oars
Icr larger maamg C he s,luared rear campus e-0 Ina' maRTg
reducing in scab and height as a moves lanyard laver denvry are
Tha em Snak ako IranslIsn linenlinenIndite tonal In mare ree,denpal
tapes
omlect Cleveland
j l F
pay
canal
cn.er.ya v.uoa^ gadarn cce:or
cialized + modus
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas w.o,o,„
hail avenue elevation wllh context
UofA
Scale transition
q
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas
material transition diagram.
tainauean aperabta glazing storefront glazing archdeolural concrete
eciaEz,ecL + modus
sluaca
wood
institutional palette - - - - - - - - - - residential palette
dark brick light brick
n,aiwal lr,M1oors
ay` jv,
F4' tl
11
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas
property diagram
0
SHIVD .PF(0 '
BAXTER PROP
(sup
THETA TAU
(support).
U
' . .
w. Cleveland st.
+ modus
7
1
a
project cleveland I tayetteville, arkansas I
l hack Umtec
Ale v Ikr11 A•eene
I'eyu�elllc -\U ?xvor
M.;c 14 111?
I.' ,.5:r Nil!her nnrr PEierneh raenmrealyntta
I1F Prnv:n Clc•ciand
%IY (Tuck U;wlm.And l l rvu.rlsteA I In IF.%,t Iuun Jm pu gv.rly nxnl trlw rd,
udlneranndu•mr l lh a f Ilv wC'poseal Juselnpnrun l ❑n nu rvuy oppmu ([is develapl ncrn
rentspupas.. In fner I nppNeiiIc the rr, l0e uhninµ mrinul,Iun !{,III Act,,,,,,
l har 11.11 hu nuplernrnm1 when tliis dncnpmc11r .a c,,npltad
Gncnclv.. //n
(Im<k lluvar
specialized modus
Kim Shivers
459W. l.mvsnn Sl.
Fnycneeille. Art 72941
in: Planning Cmnmicninners and p!nnr, og SmIT
My nnmu is Walter Kim Shivcrs and I own the praperly at 833 N Moll Ave. I in in
suppurl of the propoicd Jevelbpmunl "Project Cleveland" nt be comer of Clcvchand St.
nod Ilnll Avg.
ilmnh you,
�//
�C7Ci�GY'�+t
Waller Kim Shivers
May 14, 201?
project Cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas (Pt,. me,d,m„I Sl� ecializecI + modus
girl eee.1. chap.
letters of support
RE: Project Cleveland Specialized Real Estate Group
e June 2ol2
Inepspoae o11N:blleralos pods %died C...Mm eN me properd Iwanewdenea urine..Fel
earls ropellradlrs ndiye at drmmrs at lee Vdver... d Nkwnr era atoms, nuazm of laeaell
eamanloryichod lurlrrsalslphrnsuylheatysiPuprllncelr
Ihare jolt aamplelsdaMatter atcroon Na'+iralrom 'he urmnlpciWaMrelm lnsaolna I srppca w,
11 ender many aline erucq element, or mat vbm goolh teal lbony scanty
leaned odd Indl l be a li. r d Seattle and Paned as cwrenllr qlpldn0
Ire Castor orbs New omodsn adrai
We aNacole tire rerlrucl✓ngdcotta atre an6ueb an nl.'saucer to srqurl the
Iolb1Mb deranea: aagM1 nwddtaee be doene a ass me .stalk: camrerniliei
Awla be debased lea lips peaecem and 'tread mast or thee. t ants and loon'
trials be mopedbr,Msic'tlt aennee mew Ither e y accesaaep a epses and
e'ew,N l hart a eledo, lord history: other . aim e eelmroy, and aedna peaeamelalcoce Ice
Ind .w grharedn, pc gr. a,ebde Iconweri
IMg0.rowe cdaneerorrnp6slnclla%o'pal Clevetond iupecisely lee typed IeaWctuinsdputcy
maarvdrymed pudber Ibet the cease,, toile Newurbmun Cali Ice n cdtenterl lee abet
Pepsi IN. by erlmdnp con wmgna ^^aurae mom, allm,d1 me apprro
pevelecaeenlpractice, thatc roeray vdmmoxe the ecdegeticna4sg al rl
helnee,I n,trcemmelnWred eo-vl pienleaoeeelaprcnl represent IheIo'watllM1rL
ear lopbsln p7nrMlim gmNrtemse apkstle naiyrbwnmre me, mcowu enecliue spas
Itanulriyllema
Il love llellld hap,, to eloperte god, d urba„urldsditly it stool nradlAinolepei know and wMro
Ia enitate hype on the gratis, 50cr Meltai the seemadpcenl to lint lMrvetdty at Mkmim
e iota lea noosingdewtiei Ise Vrrveeityl oven gods d v lac nl body baiter
Ism Ise agenlnthat l dairy igovrn hoot be caom atee oath tin,, VnvetvlyIMmlae.l betray Intl Ise
creation eta Corpus, Edge :ding Ostttcl eumpigas tine gird d nedbie and int eogent t>+dic poser old
Mvelc tsenlgaclrroi Tier Ii,econgren Id Ise Newurbaimncpaloses
Inc Cmryus Edge smog Shirisl Wg berate heaterg to sluaenh nets, olden riots to the Vnvald,
M,c estop la mine dlt development prat oI a stuaentil
e passel nanny In need to pmmene and arcrtPi,glneh ed'w same,
Pumarmdeccomcenlydbg pceaotimguedh w]Mrs se ens IN. o"ou thinly to
pacticeIMI
odan inbmnntelle hmmps nawaeaaag.i osdettnrnei the ml,dapde, mrlrmweaids aria
appal the coed' FGge Zeiss dttrtct set cede to,pr st Ceelvre, hour troly bulls mach tithe
ela aWaenl la sec unvdtry I taring aimCi, orvillna rt minority h—ra and o rvd
an send cot.netam me, cant eneclwroeedanse wdlme sdwnam nedrbeNoom that emmce
eonaawalrwnenrres mainc,eme toarsnnrosot lorthecite
I recampend l trot Ise Core .doge sasses drmcl he adopted her, Polecl Cleseme Is revues
paovudsti In, lee, d voce pocrnln lattneNle I repeal both me amps thirst era the ggecl
Nicbcel K Wad
totter at When heaving a'll2
udwmtawmretadn
Is m,. tells ,wneselnarebeee led rmmred mrnoM as pease Weary
euhnmrn«d,le,tNt me ramps tree rhaehhhoopmkdaesdae wean,re manrdlnevmelnueaaarneunveerarlo xele.
nelghepmme
•ash. a.aMpl.meec.I ra.reaw.n.Ia., xav«n wrrnrwnnmllnrlei tree m..ennvo.1-an sea
else Rrkrnee sM1en rml enorh Alt lndsa erhe h.. Pay nllkaedthe Valn naval«
stars mAerwrn ,negrwsnn nere,wne hstetmrtt nr rises We.aeallen nxeMnna. hat sennno ahe«he Is erstab Mdsceilhcah,settlpdrepsetfslabstslsctol,t,tandhraptedlh,ryesctdeselacthe,esealkeblt,mn,n erlm,Mesxnpmmr,
aabnnenenmrarertblw w .sepses,. sere.«nr,rlbnaal.. oraamineeme mar tesrnprrae
orabnl ronhlr dense lnlh carts 2000 seise weanouaaahxpamceoidesenownare.vrn martlearlrmmunaepmx.p
chases roan math ma. 11R, n1d.literenrern me earns
unaenandtberahranreraehery send,brspMsms ,nraNrrdrdnrr. nnB�
egs aM unkmrrura gsnen
a, tneded,wurenere.Floornery, led,ereeer, mebaaiog tyw Mee...anlma
mars' peeltcsmn,wrner, Newsom,
IMoIlse Nants<arolt en greet, Onryra,ddPortland. .1ne,-she seethe nave musnageehsii.ee their llel , nhlavmn4 anent
appmpin, Fill end greed,d.mny,cadet,hedMnM. she seethe. o.It.11rnhederr lletuahleurnanrmee Pnpne
xha red raveled h oe mere,led a, t he visllry do the divwery keno t o the rev
111hneberlet I inlM. rhea the psisdeeateseob thenrerrssspdai,ssrcbbstbmdsndilreciraaarand. Ibare.etba drive,
k,A,nd assails e samabla Iben.e that p„An Cheri has the test dm is besabrte at pupone mnl.ce that mien
IryauturM l, na ter the revenue caseamaa,led earn goad Is mw ewaspeelghs nekhhomwd I.nt
grad n,
l belere to rig ametpa lath Wit mawwatrh.d mh denebpw we Fenn adneigbbom mnel 'halt
...perm, and,pasha. 11le mry,uesusseddeaeapsem mssdnprmnae es..or,
m ,wart msavntevlle Irallhe,.1daslopenlosemeet Folevmas rommr.dsalosgrerm,etvsn nn then lnrenmen4
and m beesldenkpmem I, the msp Whp wand w, wen meeevetspn,o„tre dosser omasbpmml,ww.ard oils, eases
Whateoe st denebpment .,ewe walling pure gamelmg braces stalls? Ranartnanwhatx Whoetheux Whe upropeMp
sirmtry that the dtrloee set eon not net bast rnlhe than ler, seed the neralli ood asides rowalnna« to spmthing
retell IMunlsnnvwnn Frennladm mm, thatch«icslayremnum asses'«e l he, heaammmnla stsderasssaisastaln Waaeeallee red ,, Th.elory Fos nn! hert..e pnpeny s led. ull,aewmep
needed noes brmngl tools I.,the, abs Vpu inn Cane date Os. wale roanme,w1r,r tell mepmaterenn, aneme
<mte(queeNv4 andeaseWlernmernern,ae tier,tbo boa doneebb %prase Cem,om t ln4 a% memvtheporna a rises
seined IwIr.lmpbs the Fapennr Xelgnoncsetabmarn lmeruneer lIt, a, neenlabkturure let heneeurdeees.h m the
,atria th, reenbwnwa easel theamenrin lba dnwa—.Ndth me type of
nuxth 0th. ,., dd,d leder ite,rrd—le.c,«awAp. upente,ne imp,weamunwnu,a
maim 0vdbndshould'xorbed...M s inenz,.mmmmaee s0g•il mtPlass emmmhsbtmsweedamLn
.there nor aw1Lne amea'Poeseal gtsueh55lwoaewraeoccasions mrnxms Pl.nammexawupea. wee m. ory
aria ladbnnamaidmmapbn Pmjeasaweknezw,am.east,ynneorar,k'anane,.pedaunnanmumdrsess:onpM
mleweroes.er e.e.ar,easa rmrnms.u. eelgde see basdtFel t I ge.saaams
esO,ay ioabel gets Wlhlrowit addn,s lM1surusalrrl+iryd onamr,.eiae neeahm.mna,asa mwnuerrvnagm aria
sacaa1. Xnea c tare
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas cayos 250 sreciali2ecl + modus
rag
letters of support.
Since we last talked I have come down solidly on the side of the proposed development at lull and
Cleveland, This Is primarily because I family believe that It directly trains es what I consider to be the
number oct problem facing our neighborhood —an increasing student population creating increased
student housing pressures in the areas sununding the University, pre which are being met by
students moving into single Family homes in the middle of our neighborhoods and all too often behaving
like they were living in a bat or sorority house The proposed development will help us deal with this
problem by providing dedicated oft -tampon housing for 450 students with 24/7 on -site management.
I have hearda umber of corexpressed byena of the neighbors an Hall, but lam net persuaded
b they are well founded. Traffic one suchconcern My observation hereon Markham is that far more
traffic Is generated by committing students and University staff traveling through ournelghborhood
than by students living in the neighborhood, and that far more students enter the neighborhood en park
on oar streets than leave to park at the University The effect on property values Is a secand concern.
When I look at this developers protect on Hill Avenue, and when I look at the existing three rental
houses on Hall that will be demolished as part ordain project, I can only believe that the proposed
project will enhance neighboringproperryva'ues. (Apparently the two property owners Immediatelteto
the north of the proposed development agree and are supportive of this development) A third
concemis for Me safety of the children at universal School. My personal opinion Is that the children,
including my two Vast grandchildren who are attending that school, will be safer when this
development is completed than they are now,
I have personally visited the Em Modern Flats project on South Hill and am very impressed with what
this developer has done with that old property I have also walked the proposed development site with
the latest edition of the proposed PED document in hand I am completed, persuaded that this
development as detailed in that document will be a posmse addition to the Immediate neighborhood as
well as to the greater neighborhood surrounding the University My only concern, which I have
expressed to the developer, is that the Poo approval process somehow assure that the project will be
eeewtedas proposed.
HAI Moeller
Washington County Asuessnet Office
zany Canop loins :m. Frymel4. AR ltlo I
sm=n:fasuyn Isac. Faetill Isla
Dear Fayetteville City Council,
I am writing to provide yo0 some lnfOn tust0o that maybe helpful in .,Our decision making
process for Me large scale development plans for the proposed Project Cleveland in
Fayclaeville As Me project is curtem er planned it is projected that this development will
inmeasethe cumnt tax roll for the City orFayeneville and Washington County by
$23.000,000
Fayenesille Independent School Cliatrid is projected to receive an annual property lax
valuation increase, through Me comes millgge, of approsimately $107,000 as a result ofthis
proposed development Also, Me City ofFayeneville and Washington County will see
increases ofapproximately 546,000
I hope this information will assist you in making an informal decision when coneidering your
vote on this large scale development plan
Sincerely,
jets Williams
Washington County Assessor
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas
CONSIDERATIONS:
• CITY PLAN 2030 GOALS
• APPROPRIATE LAND USE
• TRAFFIC
• SAFETY
• NEIGHBORHOOD BUFFER
a. ..,,..,g.o.specialized + modus
• EXTENSIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
• SCALE TRANSITION
•SUPPORT
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas 01202G121 ec alined + modus
WHY THIS DEVELOPMENT IS APPROPRIATE INFILL:
• MAJORITY OF SITE IS ALREADY ZONED MULTIFAMILY
• PROVIDES A DIVERSITY OF RESIDENTS
• COLLEGIATE HOUSING LOCATED RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE UNIVERSITY
• TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TRANSIT REQUIRES DENSITY)
• APPROPRIATE BALANCE OF GREENSPACE
project cleveland I fayetteville, arkansas
THE FACTS:
• 122 APARTMENT UNITS
• 450 RESIDENTS
• 421 PARKING SPACES
• 45 UNITS/ACRE
• ONSITE MANAGEMENT
• LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT
• LEED CERTIFIED
SFcialized + modus
Projectj
planned zoning district application
- - .-r-- - -
/fry,
MAY 17. 2012
DEVELOPER
)ecialize
REAL ESTATE GROUP
1200 SHIPLEY ST.
PO BOX 33
SPRINGDALE, AR 72764
479.927.003
REPRESENTATIVE
■ www.motlusstutlio.com
S+� lO 121act@m tlusstuaio.co
L 112 W. center st. suite 500
tayetteville, ar 72701
4 7 9 4 5 5 5 5 7 7
1111_17CONSULTINGD
ENGINEERS, INC.
a. current ownership information.
b. project summary.
c. general project concept
1. street + lot layout.
2. site plan showing proposed
improvements.
3. buffer areas.
4. tree preservation areas.
5. storm water detention areas + drainage.
6. undisturbed natural areas.
7. existing proposed utility connections +
extensions.
8. development + architectural design
standards.
9. building elevations.
d. proposed development phasing + time frame.
e. proposed planning areas (PA).
f. proposed zoning + development standards.
g. zoning comparison + analysis of
site characteristics.
h. recreational facilities, open space + accesses.
i. reason for requesting zoning change.
j. relationship to existing + surrounding properties.
k. compliance with the fayetteville city plan 2030.
I. traffic study.
m. impacts on city services.
n. statement of commitments.
1. dedication.
2. on or off site improvements.
3. natural resources + environmentally
sensitive areas.
4. project phasing restrictions.
5.1 ire + police protection.
6. other commitments imposed by the city.
7. parks, trails + open space commitments.
8. proposed preliminary building elevations.
05 o. conceptual description of development standards,
conditions + review guidelines.
06
1. screening + landscaping.
44
2. traffic + circulation.
44
3. parking standards.
44
08
4. perimeter treatment.
44
08
5. sidewalks.
44
6. streetlights.
44
08
7. water.
44
08
8. sewer.
44
08
9. streets + drainage.
44
08
10. construction of nonresidential facilities.
44
08
11. tree preservation.
44
12. architectural design standards.
44
08
13. proposed signage (type and size).
44
14. view protection.
44
08
15. revocations.
44
16. covenants, trusts + homeowner
44
17
associations.
18
21
p. how the proposal fits with the intent/purpose of the
47
22
planned zoning district.
26
26
29
37
38
42
42
42
42
43
43
43
43
43
project .evelan_. PZD 12-4079. - page.03
D
N
O
N
a
O
V
O
O)
0
O
a
Is
Property 1: Fadil Bayyari Trust is the current property
owner and there is a pending sale of the property to
Specialized Real Estate Group.
2025 Creekview #B
Fayetteville, AR 72704
Property 2: Linda Berry Trust 1 is the current property
owner and there is a pending sale of the property to
Specialized Real Estate Group.
PO Box 565
Johnson, AR 72741
Property 3: Charles + Marianne Baxter are the current
property owners and there is a pending sale of the
property to Specialized Real Estate Group.
805 N. Hall Avenue
Fayetteville, AR 72701
map of ownership.
project deve'and. PZD 12-4079. _ page.05
The subject property is located on the northwest
corner of Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue, address
1220 West Cleveland Street. It contains 2.71 acres
with 5 individual lots currently owned by three differ-
ent owners with a pending sale to Specialized Real
Estate Group.
The property to the west is zoned RMF-24, the
property to the north is zoned RSF-4, the property to
the east is zoned RSF-4 with an adjacent P-1 zone
(Leverett Elementary School), and the property to the
south is zoned P-1 (University of Arkansas Campus).
local zoning map.
walkscore: 75 Very Walkable
www.walkscore.com
This proposed Planned Zoning Development seeks
to identify, prioritize, and appropriately remedy a rec-
ognizable zoning gap within the thoughtful and pro-
gressive zoning districts within the City of Fayetteville.
Along the University of Arkansas edges and corridors
there are significant areas of scale and use transitions
that could ultimately result in more positive transects
with the introduction of a new planned zoning district
that is outlined within this document: Campus Edge
Zoning District.
The proposed district allows for the required density
to make development practical and viable combined
with architectural scale transitions that are uniquely
and appropriately addressed based on the site con-
straints and general context within the fabric of the
city. These goals are achieved by creating a zoning
district that is balanced by utilizing an existing zoning
district, Downtown General, and eliminating inappro-
priate commercial uses while increasing the height
limit along the institutional edges of the property. This
allows for a better transition within the immediate
context around the University of Arkansas. Design
standards will adhere to the same qualities that
are mandated in the City of Fayetteville Downtown
Design Overlay District, further expanding the overall
aesthetic and material quality further into the built
environment of our city.
Ultimately, this project will reinforce and expand the
goals of the Fayetteville 2030 plan, provide attain-
able, safe, modern living and amenities, and become
another sustainable site/building example by meeting
a minimum of LEED Silver certification. Furthermore,
this project will reduce commuting traffic and city
infrastructure expansion by avoiding typical sprawl
development in favor of dense, walkable infill. All of
these attributes are combined to provide a devel-
opment that fulfills the growing need for attainable
multifamily housing in the City of Fayetteville.
our developmental philosophies:
multifamily options that encourage walking
and are on established transit routes are
better than sprawl
good development adhering to good de-
sign standards is a better option for the
neighborhood than what could be built un-
der current zoning by right
N'sustainability' is not just a buzz word when
good basic site and building design prin-
ciples are actually being used to benefit
people, planet, and profit. the promised low
impact development site strategies and the
track record of this development team sup-
ports this stance.
project cleveland. PZD 12-4079. - page.06
our developmental attributes:
[<we are conserving land
(parking garage, high density, small site, no sprawl)
IN we are conserving, controlling, and filtering storm water
(bioswales, raingardens, underground detention, rainwater
harvesting for irrigation and fixing existing stormwater runoff
problems on adjacent parcels)
R we are reducing energy consumption
(LEED certified construction, efficiency in density)
we are reducing carbon emissions and traffic congestion
(less commuter traffic, more resource efficient density)
we are pulling students out of single family neighborhoods
(and putting them 50 feet across the street from the U of A)
we are providing safe student housing
(secure access to the parking garage, apartments, and on -
site amenities)
we are respecting traditional town form
(stoops, wide sidewalks with trees, green spaces, and lower
building heights adjacent to single family homes)
we are adhering to Transit Oriented Development
(bus route, walkability)
area zoning map.
project Cleveland. PZD 12-4079. _ page.07
1. street + lot layout.
There is a single lot type in Project Cleveland consist-
ing of multifamily units along all street fronts with a
parking garage wrapped by residential building and
an interior courtyard. This project potentially could
house a neighborhood coffee shop, small market or
sidewalk cafe on the ground floor near the courtyard
entrance on Hall Avenue that would primarily serve
the residents of this property, the neighborhood and
adjacent University of Arkansas dormitories.
Other tenant clubhouse/amenities are proposed for
the interior of the building, near the east side. These
amenities would provide indoor fitness, gathering,
and lounge spaces along with an exterior pool and
terrace.
Access to the parking garage is from the east on Hall
Avenue. Fire lanes will be on two sides: south and
east.
2. site plan showing proposed improvements.
The site plan illustrates the disposition of the building
on the site and shows the location of new sidewalks,
trees, and other improvements. Please refer to the
Civil plats for additional improvements information.
Sanitary sewer, storm sewer, and water lines will all be
built and deeded to the City of Fayetteville, along with
all necessary right-of-ways.
3. buffer areas.
There are no additional provided buffer areas on the
site outside of what is required to meet the provisions
of the Unified Development Code.
4. tree preservation areas.
Trees located on the west/southwest corner and
northwest corner of the project site will be protected
and preserved according to Title XV of the Unified
Development Code, Chapter 167: Tree Preservation
and Protection, as shown on tree preservation draw-
ings
No trees located on adjacent properties will be
removed.
5. storm water detention areas + drainage.
The development will not increase the amount of
storm runoff from the site to the adjacent properties
more than currently exists. Runoff on the site will be
detained underground in the courtyard area. The run-
off will be released at a rate such that the peak runoff
is not increased due to the development. The runoff
will discharge into existing storm drainage along Hall
Avenue.
6. undisturbed natural areas.
There are no undisturbed natural areas on site.
7. existing + proposed utility connections
and extensions.
Approximately 312 LF of the existing 6" waterline
running west from the intersection of Cleveland Street
and Hall Avenue will need to be upgraded to an 8"
waterline. Additionally, approximately 460 LF of exist-
ing 6" waterline running northward from the intersec-
tion of Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue would need
to be upgraded to a 12" waterline.
The existing 6" sanitary sewer line that runs north/
south on Hall Avenue will need to be upgraded to an
8" sanitary sewer line. This upgrade would need to
occur from the intersection of Wedington Drive, south
to Project Cleveland's northeast property corner (ap-
prox. 915 LF).
8. development + architectural design standards.
This multi -family development is currently designed
for 122 units, 450 beds.
The project adopts a modern aesthetic appropriate
to its scale and location within the city. Clean lines,
clearly defined volumes, and precise arrange-
ment of the elements relative to local topographic
conditions of the site characterize the architectural
design.
Development and Architectural Standards are pro-
vided in the Zoning Criteria for the Planning Area.
9. building elevations.
See proposed building elevations + perspective
views on pages 10-14.
project cHvianc. PZD 12-4079. _ page.08
bioswale/raingarden
tree preservation
20"elm
existing concrete
retaining wall to remain
green screen wall at parking
garage facade
theta tau
f I_
tree preservation garden
(entire western zone of site)
ramgar en
T T
I
parCi bike lane
I '
maple hill dorms
10' raised pedestrian
crosswalk
pocket park
terraced courtyard entrance
new trees in courtyard
walk-up apartments with
stoops along hall avenue
B' sidewalk with street trees
pool and courtyard
coffee shop
raised pedestrian walk
(traffic calming device)
ground level lobby
street trees
raingarden
parking garage entry
trash pick-up staging
raingarden
landscaped light + air well
southeast entry
(primary entry terrace)
bike lane
site plan
I project Cleveland. PZD 12-4079.. _ page.09
south elevation.
rainscreen panels
cedar
brick
storefront glazing
rain garden
parking garage entrance
material options:
pulic access pocket park
large rain gardeMraswale
1506_4"
1495$"
1486-0"
1474-4"
1464'-8"
east elevation.
gray brick. gray + white stucco. rainscreen panel system options: cedar siding. architectural concrete. green screen.
composite metal, terracotta panel, cement fiberboard panel
project develand. PZD 12-4079. _ page.10
1495-8'
�I.
: : i i :: :: : :
��w : ICI ISI ICI I■I
I I v l i r
large rain gardeNoioswale
Stucco
north elevation.
green screen
west elevation.
project ;.r_an:i. PZD 12-4079, _ page.11
9 1-• .rc?-'w.
' t '
,
:«c e I.
�. k •
�
t '-:-t.-: =r-
z-=
'these views are in -process perspectives, subject to change.
view looking northeast along cleveland street. project Cleveland. PZD 12-4079. — page.14
;w
--j__
w
v'
r
F1� i
li • _11 ..
1 ":
Since this is essentially a single -building proposal,
this project will consist of one phase. The project will
be constructed in totality through the estimated time
frame of the proposal. All permits necessary to begin
construction shall be obtained within one -and -a -half
years from the date of city council approval of the
PZD. A final certificate of occupancy shall be ob-
tained within three -and -a -half years from the building
permit approval.
PZD.
DESIGN PHASE.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE.
ALL PERMITS OBTAINED
WITHIN 1-1/2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF PZD
phasing + time frame diagram.
ESTIMATED COMPLETION DATE
08,2014
-1
PZD EXPIRES
3-1/2 YEARS AFTER
BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL
project cicvc'aid. PZD 12-4079. - page.17
There will be only one planning area proposed in this
PZD: PA.1: Campus Edge.
PA.1: CAMPUS EDGE
PERMITTED USES
unit 1: city-wide uses by right.
unit 8: single-family dwellings.
unit 9: two-family dwellings.
unit 10: three-family dwellings.
unit26: multi -family dwellings.
CONDITIONAL USES
unit 4: cultural + recreational facilities.
unit 12: limited business.
unit 13: eating places.
unit 15: neighborhood shopping goods.
unit 40: sidewalk cafes.
DENSITY
none.
LOT WIDTH MINIMUM
dwelling (all unit types) 18 ft.
LOT AREA MINIMUM
none.
LAND AREA PER DWELLING UNIT
n/a.
REQUIRED SETBACKS [see diagram on page 19]
front build -to zone from front property line to 25'
side 10'
rear 0'
MINIMUM BUILDABLE STREET FRONTAGE
50% of lot width,
HEIGHT REGULATIONS [see diagram on page 19]
60 ft. maximum
LANDSCAPING
In accordance with the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code.
PA map. LI
I.
PARKING
In accordance with the City of Fayetteville Unified Development
Code.
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
All structures shall be designed and constructed to comply with the
architectural design standards of the PA -1 Planning Area and all
Downtown General design standards.
SIGNAGE
In accordance with the City of Fayetteville Unified Development
Code Chapter 174 requirements for multi -family districts.
project :.lcr,. a'd. PZD 12-4079.—page.18
*adjacent RSF-4 property has 45height limitation
required setbacks + height regulations diagram
'60 ii. building height maximum above prcjectec exlet1ng grade plane to top of occupied spaces \,I
project c evelcrd. PZD 12-4079. _ page.19
tg
4
tcres(1 unit)
4
acres (1 unit)
4
acres (1 unv;)
-40
acres (64 units)
4
acres (1 unit)
existina oarcels plan
proposed units
■ 30 units
■ 5 units
12 units
75 units
0 units
d. PZD 12-4079. _ page.20
r
Permitted uses will consist mostly of all residential
dwelling types, with conditional uses being that of
cultural and recreational facilities, eating places,
neighborhood shopping goods, and sidewalk cafes
There will be no maximum density and no lot area
minimums. The lot width minimum for all dwelling unit
types will be 18 feet.
The required front setback will be a build -to zone from
the front property line to 25 feet into the site. The front
of the property is referring to the sides facing Cleve-
land Street and Hall Avenue. The sides of the prop-
erty will have a required setback of 10 feet. The sides
of the property are referring to those property lines
facing west towards Theta Tau. The rear will have no
required setback. The rear of the property is referring
to the side to the west of the building, facing north.
[see the required setbacks diagram on page 19]
The minimum buildable street frontage will be 50% of
the lot width on each street facing facade.
Height restrictions on all sides will be a uniform maxi-
mum of 60 feet above projected existing grade plane
to top of occupied spaces.
All structures shall be designed and constructed to
comply with the architectural design standards of
the PA -1 Planning Area, Downtown Design Overlay
District, and all City design standards.
The landscaping, parking, and signage will all be
installed in accordance with the City of Fayetteville
Unified Development Code.
aerial photo + diagram of surrounding area. J_,
I �
project Cleveland. PZD 12-4079. - page.21
ZONE
RSE-4 [portion of current zoning]
PERMITTED
unit 1: city-wide uses by right.
USES
unit 8: single-family dwellings.
unit 41: accessory dwellings.
CONDITIONAL
unit 2: city-wide uses by CUP.
USES
unit 3: public protection + utility facilities.
unit 4: cultural + recreational facilities.
unit 5: government facilities.
unit 9: two-family dwellings.
unit 12: limited business.
unit 24: home occupation.
unit 36: wireless communications facilities.
DENSITY
4 or less single-family units, 7 or less two-family units.
LOT WIDTH
single-family
70 ft.
MINIMUM
single-family [hillside overlay district]
60 ft.
two-family
80 ft.
two-family [hillside overlay district]
70 ft.
LOT AREA
single-family
8,000 sq. ft.
MINIMUM
single-family [hillside overlay district]
8,000 sq. ft.
two-family
12,000 sq. ft.
two-family [hillside overlay district]
12,000 sq. ft.
LAND AREA
single-family
8,000 sq. ft.
PER
single-family [hillside overlay district]
8,000 sq. ft.
DWELLING
two-family
6,000 sq. ft.
UNIT
two-family [hillside overlay district]
6,000 sq. ft.
REQUIRED
front
15 ft.
SETBACKS
side
5 ft.
rear
15 ft.
MINIMUM
none
BUILDABLE
STREET
FRONTAGE
HEIGHT
45 ft. maximum.
REGULATIONS
existing structures shall be grandfathered in.
project clevdand. PZD 12-4079. - page.22
ZONE
RMF-40 [portion of current zoning]
PERMITTED
unit 1: city-wide uses by right.
USES
unit 8: single-family dwellings.
unit 9: two-family dwellings.
unit 10: three-family dwellings.
unit 26: multi -family dwellings,
CONDITIONAL
unit 2: city-wide uses by CUP
USES
unit 3: public protection + utility facilities.
unit 4: cultural + recreational facilities.
unit 5: government facilities.
unit 11: manufactured home park.
unit 12: limited business.
unit 24: home occupation.
unit 25: professional offices.
unit 36: wireless communications facilities.
DENSITY
40 units or less.
LOT WIDTH
manufactured home park
100 ft.
MINIMUM
lot within a manufactured home park
50 ft.
single-family
60 ft.
two-family
60 ft.
three or more
90 ft.
professional offices
100 ft.
LOT AREA
manufactured home park
3 acres.
MINIMUM
lot within a manufactured home park
4,200 sq. ft.
townhouses. development individual lot
10,000 sq. ft.
single-family
6,000 sq. ft.
two-family
6,500 sq. ft.
three or more
8,000 sq. ft.
fraternity or sorority
1 acre.
LAND AREA
manufactured home park
3,000 sq. ft.
PER
townhouses + apartments
DWELLING
no bedroom
1,000 sq, ft.
UNIT
one bedroom
1,000 sq. ft.
two or more bedrooms
1,200 sq. ft.
fraternity or sorority 500 sq. ft. per resident.
REQUIRED
front build -to zone of 10-25 ft.
SETBACKS
side 8 ft,
rear 2011.
MINIMUM
50% of lot width
BUILDABLE
STREET
FRONTAGE
HEIGHT
60 ft. maximum.
REGULATIONS
any building which exceeds the height of 20 feet shall be set back from any
side boundary line of an adjacent single family district, an additional distance of
one foot for each foot of height in excess of 20 feet.
project clevelano. PZD 12-4079. — page23
ZONE
DOWNTOWN GENERAL [for comparison purposes]
PERMITTED
unit 1: city-wide uses by right.
USES
unit 4: cultural + recreational facilities.
unit 5: government facilities.
unit 8: single-family dwellings.
unit 9: two-family dwellings.
unit 10: three-family dwellings.
unit 13. eating places.
unit 15: neighborhood shopping goods.
unit 24: home occupations
unit 25: offices, studios, + related services.
unit 26: mufti -family dwellings.
CONDITIONAL
unit 2: city-wide uses by CUP.
USES
unit 3: public protection + utility facilities.
unit 14: hotel, motel + amusement services.
unit 16: shopping goods.
unit 17: transportation trades + services.
unit 19: commercial recreation, small sites.
unit 28: center for collecting recyclable materials
unit 36: wireless communications facilities.
unit 40: sidewalk cafes.
DENSITY
none.
LOT WIDTH
dwelling (all unit types) 18 ft.
MINIMUM
LOT AREA
none.
MINIMUM
LAND AREA
n/a.
PER
DWELLING
UNIT
REQUIRED
front build -to zone from front property line to 25 ft.
SETBACKS
side none.
rear 5 ft.
rear, from center line of alley 12 ft.
MINIMUM
50% of lot width.
BUILDABLE
STREET
FRONTAGE
HEIGHT
4 stories or 56 ft. [whichever is less]
REGULATIONS
project cleveland. PZD 12-4079. - page,24
ZONE
PA.I: CAMPUS EDGE
PERMITTED
unit 1: city-wide uses by right.
USES
unit 8: single-family dwellings.
unit 9: two-family dwellings.
unit 10: three-family dwellings.
unit 26: multi -family dwellings.
CONDITIONAL
unit 4: cultural + recreational facilities.
USES
unit 12: limited business.
unit 13: eating places.
unit 15: neighborhood shopping goods.
unit 40: sidewalk cafes.
DENSITY
none.
LOT WIDTH
dwelling (all unit types) 18 ft.
MINIMUM
LOT AREA
none.
MINIMUM
LAND AREA
n/a.
PER
DWELLING
UNIT
REQUIRED
front
build -to zone from front property line to 25'
SETBACKS
side
10'
rear
0'
MINIMUM
50% of lot width.
BUILDABLE
STREET
FRONTAGE
HEIGHT
60 ft. building height maximum above projected existing grade plane to top of
REGULATIONS
occupied spaces.
analysis of site characteristics.
Project Cleveland's site is bounded on two sides by
existing streets. To the east is Hall Avenue and to the
south is Cleveland Street.
The property slopes from the south to the north and
is currently covered in a mix of apartments, single-
family homes, and a sparatic tree canopy. There are
no tributaries or drainage ways on site besides the
swale along the north edge of the property, which
runs west to east.
Located just north of the University of Arkansas
Campus and just west of Leverett Elementary School,
the site has views towards the Maple Hill dormitory
complex and Hotz Hall to the south, as well as views
east and north of existing homes, and west towards
the Theta Tau house.
project cleveland. PZD 12-4079. - page.25
This project proposes two new greenspaces, one
at the tree preservation garden that occupies the
western portion of the property, and one on the north-
east corner of the property, adjacent to Hall Avenue.
These open areas will be accessible and usable by
tenants as well as neighbors. These are not specifi-
cally dedicated parks, but will be maintained by the
development for the greater benefit of the neighbor-
hood.
City of Fayetteville public parks and open areas exist
within ready access to this project, including Asbell
Park, Wilson Park, Agri Park, Hotz Park, and Old Main
Lawn at the University of Arkansas. Large areas of the
university campus also serve as a greenspace. This
project is within close proximity to bike trails such as
Scull Creek Trail, Frisco Trail, and Oak Ridge Trail.
r
A development such as Project Cleveland would
not be possible under other zoning districts. There
currently exists a gap in the existing city zoning that
does not properly address sites adjacent to the Uni-
versity campus. This Campus Edge zone requires an
advantageous density in order to best utilize the site.
The project designers wish to present current and
future residents some of the lifestyle amenities that
the Fayetteville 2O30 City Plan provides by encourag-
ing pedestrian street life yet in a more appropriately
urban manner.
projectcleoa'and. PZD 12-4079. - page.26
tree preservation garden
20" elm
existing tree preservation
area on adjacent property
tree preservation park
15" pine
30" oak
15" maple
22" maple
green screen parking
garage facade
19" maple
16" maple
32" maple
street trees
tree preservation garden + outdoor space diagram.
pocket park
terraced courtyard entrance
street trees
new trees in courtyard
landscaped courtyard
landscaped light + air well
street trees
project cleve'and. PZD 12-4079. — page.27
low impact design diagram. '1T±',
project Cleveland.
bio Swale/rain garden
rain garden
rain garden
rain garden
rain garden
PZD 12-4079. — page.28
j
To the west is the Theta Tau house along with other single-
family residences, to the north are single family residences.
Adjacent to the east are single-family rentable homes as
well as Leverett Elementary School. Further to the east are
approximately four square blocks of multi-familty structures.
Directly across the street to the south is the large University
of Arkansas campus dormitory complex, Maple Hill, and the
nine story dormitories Hotz Hall and Reid Hall.
Project Cleveland will solidify the corner of Cleveland Street
and Hall Avenue, and address the rather large presence
of the Maple Hill, Hotz Hall, and Reid Hall dormitories. The
facade of these streets will be solid and consistant when
adjacent to larger institutional zones, while scale will be
gradually broken down when adjacent to more residential
zoning and buffered with landscape screening systems. The
building will be a safe and pleasant distance from the street
and feature sidewalks and landscaping
The traffic will access Project Cleveland from Hall Avenue
traveling north from Cleveland Street. The majority of traffic
from Cleveland Street will be from the east, but there will be
a smaller amount from the west. This will be in accordance
with the UDC access management.
All signage is to comply with the City of Fayetteville Unified
Development Code.
• J.j � ' '-��l
..
3
fMlr'-
f + � f 1yl�r
+,.♦ a r it �. 'ir ! Lam" t%i, �� , hn"��TT a•fJ
iiff'' rrr i
.!L!L' 'J n! �'. I� af i . i:la i� i :,►.�• ,� iii r � yl .. i'r�i .\ I L +a 111 11 :
�r mot'/•! � � � l L� l�L�.� � e� ; ��s _
i `►�s;Fil � fi ♦ r+ f , � l �_.{ K - f������I�f�i,'�'6j-�,�1�' 1 ..., I[d4• �i�
i.r + re r*r ta.� LI yL-i=" (+�ql ��j L ` ;i�;
' �' •, •] r' r.J i r� r---, 1 ._Tt'
k$ i �rf' A j i ≥Si-� ri: .; -�] }i rim f�„� •���
_l r � r{ r. i
j i :�` Q .�,��i,l �. 7�1 ���LJI ���J .�J 1 it r
i Yi 1 1 _� la� �
Syr 1• UrF'�S�a �,?!l' : ■ �_`1}'•
I I l
fl!flea
r I l i�s.i_ A17 1 I.
filE'•� 1�Yt-I• Ii : _���ir f ` �r 1 i � ! _i;}'/ ,
'.: 1'fr S Ill
r 1
figure ground of surrounding neighborhood. f1 project cleveland. figure ground of greater campus area.
.__! multi -family housing.
projectclrvc'and. PZD 12-4079. — page.29
L
east elevation with site context + height comparison.
shadow study I sc n er sots` �e
11 AM
1 PM
3PM
5 PM
FI
9AM 11 AM 1PM
3] leverett elementary school playground area
3PM 5PM
project dcv�lund. PZD 12-4079. _ page.30
1. site section running north/south through maple hill dormitory, project cleveland, + homes on hall avenue - looking west
2. site section running north/south through hall avenue - looking west
project velanc. PZD 12-4079. — page.31
campus edge diagram 1
The Campus Edge Zone provides an appropriate
connection between two different, yet compatible
land uses, one being the dense University of Arkan-
sas campus, and the other being the lower density
housing areas which surround the campus. This zone
allows for larger massing to be situated near campus
with that massing reducing in scale and height as it
moves toward lower density areas. The materials also
transition from institutional to more residential types.
university of arkansas garland center
project develand. PZD 12-4079. — page.32
rainscreen
operable glazing storefront glazing
architectural concrete
•,, fie: is ��
stucco
.. institutional palette - - - - - - - - - -
wood
residential palette
dark brick light brick
material transitions
project Cleveland. PZD 12-4079. - page.33
►1� se'• .rrc
::..
' ra rve _
i ro f
- - I nv2_awnI:__rTlr I + - - - I
1IP
'!J$;4. EH'i :;4iZ :Jt1tc •*
� s+
j°
j;
--J&'•. ;r spa cc�
0
0
2-
C
N
-N-
0
v
0
j
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE PLANNING GOALS.
GOAL 1
Project Cleveland's infill strategy will provide a more appropriate
We will make appropriate infill and revitalization our highest priorities.
density for this Campus Edge zone by utilizing the property to it's
correct potential. More units in close proximity to the University and
other neighborhood services will encourage even more appropri-
ate development and revitalization right where it is needed.
GOAL 2
Project Cleveland discourages suburban sprawl by concentrat-
We will discourage suburban sprawl.
ing residential population near the center of the city and near the
University campus, encouraging more revitilization in this area, and
decreasing traffic and infrastructure expansion demands on the
rest of the city.
GOAL 3
Project Cleveland encourages the values of traditional urban life
We will make traditional town form the standard.
by encouraging pedestrian activity through a street -level cafe or
coffee shop and relegating parking and building services to the
interior of the building.
GOAL 4
Project Cleveland encourages the use of alternative transportation
We will grow a livable transportation network,
methods by being directly on the Razorback Transit route, being in
close proximity to the University campus, being in close proxim-
ity to bike trails, and providing appropriately scaled and usable
sidewalks.
GOAL 5
Project Cleveland contributes to the green network of Fayette -
We will assemble an enduring green network.
ville by advancing the development of the Campus Edge zone
as having tree -lined streets, rich landscape elements, a planted
courtyard, and various elevational green screens. This project will
be LEED Silver certified at a minimum.
GOAL 6
Project Cleveland is the definition of attainable housing. Condos
We will create opportunities for attainable housing,
and upscale housing units built in the past have caused a large
amount of space in the downtown and campus area to remain
empty, leaving the city with appropriate density possiblities still
unrealized. By providing well designed yet affordable, rentable
apartment units directed towards students and young profession-
als. Project Cleveland is helping to revitalize this area and create
the density and liveliness that is more appropriate for this Campus
Edge zone.
project cicvolanc. PZD 12-4079. — page.37
Two traffic studies have been completed. The following findings and recommendations are excerpts from pages
31-33 of the study completed by Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc., dated May 10, 2012.
Findings and Recommendations of Traffic Study 01:
Approximately 1,043 vehicle trips (combined in
and out) per average weekday are projected
to be generated by the proposed residential
student housing land use on this site. Of this total,
approximately 75 vehicle trips are estimated
during the traffic conditions of the AM peak hour,
approximately 85 vehicle trips are estimated dur-
ing the traffic conditions of the school PM peak
hour and approximately 144 vehicle trips are
estimated during the traffic conditions of the PM
peak hour.
Capacity and LOS analysis results for existing
traffic conditions for the study intersections indi-
cate existing vehicle movements for existing traf-
fic conditions at the study intersections presently
operate at what calculates as an acceptable LOS
"D" or better for the AM, school PM and typical
PM peak hours.
Capacity and LOS analysis results performed for
projected traffic conditions for the AM, school PM
and typical PM peak hours for the study intersec-
tions indicate vehicle movements at the study
intersections are expected to continue to operate
at what calculates as an acceptable LOS "D" or
better for the worst -case AM, school PM and typi-
cal PM peak hours.
• Project Cleveland is along the existing Razorback
Transit route. This will facilitate usage by resi-
dents and have the effect of reducing vehicular
traffic generation.
The access drive proposed to serve the Project
Cleveland development will intersect Hall Avenue
only with no direct access via Cleveland Street.
Access via Hall Avenue (local street) is better
than direct access on higher volume Cleveland
Street (Collector) providing fewer non -site traffic
volume conflicts with ingress and egress to the
site.
Existing daily volume on Hall Avenue is approxi-
mately 860 vehicles per typical weekday (two-
way volume). It is expected that approximately 25
percent of the site generated traffic will utilize Hall
Avenue, north of the site (an additional two-way
volume of approximate 260 vehicles per day).
The combined total of the projected 1,120 ve-
hicles per day (two-way volume) on Hall Avenue,
north of the site is expected to remain well below
the City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan local
street service volume of less than 4,000 vehicles
per day.
• It is projected that approximately 30 percent of
the site generated traffic volumes is expected to
enter and exit the proposed site form the west
via Cleveland Street. It is assumed that most, if
not all, of this traffic from the west will be from or
destined to the University of Arkansas facilities,
thereby using Razorback Road, west of the site.
It is expected that very little, if any, site -generated
traffic volumes will likely travel west of Razorback
Road via Cleveland Street unless they are des-
tined to a specific location in that area, This travel
pattern is consistent with traffic counts made
west of the site at Cleveland Roads intersections
with Razorback Road, Sunset Avenue and Oliver
Avenue.
• It is recommended to construct the site access
drives along Hall Avenue to consist of an inbound
lane and an outbound lane.
• The new access drive intersection along Hall
Avenue must conform City of Fayetteville design
standards and will require approval by the City.
It is recommended to install pedestrian crossing
warning signs per the MUTCD for traffic exiting
the site drive approaching Hall Avenue. Also, it is
recommended to include pedestrian crosswalk
markings at the site access drive adjacent to Hall
Avenue. Additionally, it is recommended to install
a new crosswalk (and required MUTCD signs)
across Hall Avenue near the north edge of the
site. This could be constructed as a raised cross-
walk with embedded LED lights in pavement to
also serve to reduce speed by vehicles on Hall
Avenue in the vicinity.
It is recommended that consideration be given
to including raised crosswalks with embedded
LED lights in pavement enhancements to existing
crosswalks along Cleveland Street, between Hall
Avenue and Garland Avenue due to the existing
high pedestrian activity observed in this area.
project cc, oiand. PZD 12-4079. - page.38
The following findings and recommendations are excerpts from pages 07-37 of the study completed by Small
Arrow Engineering, LLC, dated May 14, 2012.
Findings and Recommendations of Traffic Study 02:
Existing Conditions.
• The existing signalized intersection at Cleveland
Street & Garland Avenue is operating at LOS B
with a delay of 19.5 sec/veh for the A.M. peak
hour and LOS C with a delay of 28.2 sec/veh for
the PM peak hour.
• The intersection of Hall Avenue & Cleveland
Street with a single stop control on the south-
bound lane operated at LOS A for both the AM
and PM peak hours in the undeveloped condi-
tion.
• Consideration should be given to removing mid -
block crosswalks for improved pedestrian safety.
• Add a "Do Not Enter" sign on the "One Way" sign
Existing + Developed Conditions.
The signalized intersection of Cleveland Street
and Garland Avenue would operate at LOS C
with a delay of 22.1 sec/veh for the A.M. peak
hour and LOS C with a delay of 28.6 sectveh
for the PM peak hour. When compared to the
same time periods without the new development,
there is a 2.6 second increase in delay for the
AM and a 0.4 second increase in delay in the
PM. The intersection of Hall Avenue & Cleveland
Street continued to operate at LOS A for both the
AM and PM peak hours when stop control was
added on the east and west directions for the
developed conditions.
At the Hall Avenue and Cleveland Street intersection:
Adding a 3 to 4 inch high raised table as a traffic
calming feature at the intersection or milling the
intersection and constructing contrasting pave-
ment colors/types in the intersection and in the
crosswalk areas. (ie.. Crosswalks could be brick
pavers with a colored stamped concrete logo in
the intersection.
• Adding 10 foot wide crosswalks along the west
and south sides of the intersection.
• Widening the existing 6 foot wide crosswalks
along the north and east sides of the intersection
to 10 foot wide crosswalks.
• Adding/Improving lighting in/near the intersec-
tion.
• Adding a "Do Not Enter" sign on the "One Way"
sign to the university's driveway to add an ad-
ditional level of enforcement.
• Consideration may be given to adding a cross-
walk beacon system.
At the mid -block crosswalks:
• Consideration should be given to removing the
crosswalks for safety reasons with those move-
ments moved to either the Hall and Cleveland
intersection or the Garland and Cleveland inter-
section.
Future Conditions (2032):
• The signal at Cleveland Street and Garland Ave-
nue would operate at LOS C with a delay of 26.3
sec/veh for the A.M. peak hour and LOS E with a
delay of 69.3 sec/veh for the PM peak hour.
• The intersection of Hall Avenue & Cleveland
Street with a single stop control on the south-
bound lane operated at LOS B for both the AM
and PM peak hours in the future condition.
• Adding a dedicated eastbound left turn lane at
the Cleveland Street and Garland Avenue signal
should be considered to remove the split timing.
Future + Developed Conditions (2032):
For the Future (2032) Developed Condition, the
existing signal at Cleveland Street and Garland
Avenue would operate at LOS C with a delay of
28.9 sec/veh for the A.M. peak hour and LOS
E with a delay of 72.2 sec/veh for the PM peak
hour.
• The intersection of Hall Avenue & Cleveland
Street continued to operate at LOS B for both the
AM and PM peak hours when stop control was
added on the east and west directions for the
developed conditions.
project Cleveland. PZD 12-4079. — page.39
8' sidewalk
with street trees
7.5' compact parking lane
and shared bike lane
13'shared bike lane
13' shared bike lane
I
r 4 r
fLfII�� Y1 1 L- 'L
- Lfll
i
V
Y
.:c
h ■ Y 1_. 5
L L
1' �
:7
�� ■ I
1
'I •. 1 �.�
1
III i r .1
-_UI -. 51• •Ik--R, I,I�y 11 .21I_ YqA 1
' tr IL..,. iI._. �i I I 7 1
cleveland street plan diagram
project cleveland. PZD 12-4079. — page.41
Is
Project Cleveland will connect to proposed utility
lines and will improve upon existing water and sewer
infrastructure to meet city requirements.
Storm water discharge will meet requirements of
the City of Fayetteville Unified Development Code &
Drainage Manual by use of underground detention
with lid strategies.
Is
1. + 2. dedication + on or off site improvements.
All public streets along with their associated side-
walks and drainage improvements will be designed
and constructed in accordance with The Master
Street Plan, City of Fayetteville Code of Ordinances,
Title XV Unified Development Code, Chapter 172:
Parking & Loading, Chapter 171: Streets and Side-
walks, and Chapter 170: Storm Water Management,
Drainage & Erosion Control respectively. All of the
above areas will be dedicated to the City, and main-
tenance will then be provided by the City. Sewer and
Water improvements will also be planned and built in
accordance with the City of Fayetteville.
3. natural resources + environmentally sensitive areas.
There are no significant natural resources or environ-
mentally sensitive areas on site.
project develar J. PZD 12-4079. - page.42
4. project phasing restrictions.
As this is essentially a single building urban typology
proposal, there will be only one phase for the project.
5. fire + police protection.
Fire and police protection will be provided by the
Fayetteville Fire and Police Departments. The units
presented in this PZD are not seen to present any
needed increase in protection and service.
Two fire lanes will be provided: one on Cleveland
Street and one on Hall Avenue.
6. other commitments imposed by the city.
There are currently no other commitments imposed
by the City of Fayetteville.
7. parks, trails + open space commitments.
Greenspace requirements will be met for Project
Cleveland; tree preservation and protection will be
implemented in accordance with the City of Fayette-
ville Code of Ordinances Title XV Unified Develop-
ment Code: Chapter 167 Tree Preservation & Protec-
tion. Landscaping within Project Cleveland will also
be planned in accordance with the City of Fayetteville
Landscape Manual, which sets forth the standards
and specifications for Tree Preservation, Protection,
and Landscaping.
B. proposed preliminary building elevations.
See section "C. 9." on pages 10-11 for proposed
building elevations.
' new fire lane access.
project cleve PZD 12-4079. _page.43
1. screening + landscaping.
Trees and other landscape features will be planted as
shown on the plats. Trees shall line the public streets
of the development in harmony with city codes and
requirements. Landscaping will also be consistent
with the submitted Landscape Plan.
2. traffic + circulation.
The traffic and vehicle circulation areas will be in-
stalled in accordance with the Unified Development
Code and per traffic study recommendations.
3. parking standards. [parking diagrams on page 45]
All parking areas will be installed in accordance with
section 172 of the Unified Development Code.
The parking garage is concealed on three sides by
building and will conform to city requirements for
parking garages.
4. perimeter treatment.
All uses of land or structures will meet the open
space, buffer, and green strip provisions of the Uni-
fied Development Code.
5. sidewalks.
Public sidewalks will be designed and constructed in
accordance with the Master Street Plan and Section
171 of the Unified Development Code.
6. streetlights.
Streetlights will be built to the specifications of the
Unified Development Code. Custom streetlights will
be used as needed.
7. water. [diagram on page 46]
Approximately 312 LF of the existing 6" waterline
running west from the intersection of Cleveland Street
and Hall Avenue will need to be upgraded to an 8"
waterline. Additionally, approximately 460 LF of exist-
ing 6" waterline running Northward from the intersec-
tion of Cleveland Street and Hall Avenue would need
to be upgraded to a 12" waterline. All utilities will be
installed according to city requirements.
8. sewer. [diagram on page 46]
The existing 6" sanitary sewer line that runs north/
south on Hall Avenue will need to be upgraded to an
8" sanitary sewer line. This upgrade would need to
occur from the intersection of Wedington Drive, south
to Project Cleveland's northeast property corner (ap-
prox. 915 LF).
9. streets + drainage.
The development will not increase the amount of
storm runoff from the site to the adjacent proper-
ties than currently exists, in fact, existing problems
will be remedied. Runoff on the site will be detained
underground in the courtyard area. The runoff will
be released at a rate such that the peak runoff is not
increased due to the development. The runoff will
discharge into existing storm drainage along Hall
Avenue.
10. construction of nonresidential facilities.
The street level of Project Cleveland will contain a
possible coffee shop or sidewalk cafe as both an
ammenity for the residents as well as an ammenity for
the surrounding neighborhood. There will also be an
ammenities club house near the courtyard entrance
on Hall Avenue to contain all necessary ammenities
for the tenants of Project Cleveland.
11. tree preservation.
Tree preservation at Project Cleveland will follow Title
XV of the Unified Development Code, Chapter 167:
Tree Preservation and Protection.
The required preserved canopy for a PZD is 25%,
however only 19.8% is existing. Extensive efforts
have been undertaken to maintain and preserve
existing trees specifically in areas that lie between
this development and adjacent properties. In all,
6.8% canopy is being preserved on site. Nine large
species trees will be planted on site to add to current
canopy calculations, and an additional sum will be
paid into the City's tree escrow account to aid in the
maintenance and planting of trees throughout the City
of Fayetteville.
12. architectural design standards.
Project Cleveland will comply with the architectural
design standards of Title XV of the Unified Devel-
opment Code, Chapter 166: Development, sec-
tion166.21: Downtown Design Overlay District with
the following revisions due to the nature of student
housing design common in this zone:
a. We propose the required minimum glass
on the first or ground floor to be lowered
from 40% to 20%,
b. We also propose no restrictions on pedes-
trian access intervals along principal
facades.
Both items found in Section E. Exterior Architectural
Elements, 7. Opacity and Facades, b. First or Ground
Floor Requirements of Any Principal Facade.
13. proposed signage [type and size].
All signage is to comply with the City of Fayetteville
Unified Development Code. No pole/pylon signs will
be permitted within Project Cleveland. Signage clas-
sifications in accordance with the UDC is specified in
the zoning criteria for the Planning Area.
14. view protection.
There are no existing threatened views by completion
of this project.
15. revocations.
The developer understands causes for revocation
and will take all measures necessary to avoid revoca-
tion.
16. covenants, trusts + homeowner associations.
No covenants, trusts, or homeowner associations cur-
rently exist for this property.
project cleveland. PZD 12-4079. - page.44
standard spaces: 5T•°-'°`
compact spaces: 9r
parking provided: 6f
motor/scooter
spaces (m/s): 5r
parking garage diagram - levels 01-05
standard spaces:
compact spaces:
parking provided:
motor/scooter
spaces (m/s):
bike racks (br):
standard spaces:
compact spaces:
parking provided:
49
parking garage diagram - level CO
parking garage diagram - level 06
project c eveland. PZD 12-4079. - page.45
as Fria... U.N. MWWW WaM as .ta ..fa a■ aa■a
•312i$
water line — sanitary sewer line
all new electrical lines to be placed underground.
extend north to Wedington Drive intersection
area drain
6" line upgraded to 8" line
under ground storm water detention
large area inlets
area drain
■
6" tine upgraded to 12" line
■
■ J
MQ
•
•
•
■
aaaawwan aaJ
a
U
— storm water drainage a a-.. upgraded line
6" line upgraded to 8" line
proposed utility + storm water diagram
project clEv Icn ++. PZD 12-4079. - page.46
rc
The proposed structure(s) in accordance and sup-
port of the proposed Campus Edge zoning district
decisively address and define the ability to provide
ml ill development within an identifiable zoning gap
in the City of Fayetteville. By providing a transitional
zone appropriately scaled to the diversity of the con-
text, this zone and the proposed structure will support
and exceed the Fayetteville 2030 plan, reinforce the
sustainable network of our city, and positively affect
the city infrastructure through appropriate improve-
ments. The nature of the development will fulfill the
growing need for attainable, walkable, multifamily
housing in the City of Fayetteville.
project cie,.e and. PZD 12-4079, - page.47
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS DEMCCRATGAZETTE
NORTHWESTARKANSAS THE MORNING NEWS OF SPRINGDALE
NEWSPME16LLC THE MORNING NEWS OF ROGERS
NORTHWEST EliMES
NTON COUNTY AIARKALYRECORD
212 NORTH EAST AVENUE, FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 1 P.O. BOX 1607. 72702 1 479-4424700 1 WWW.NWANEWS.COM
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Karen Caler, do solemnly swear that I am the Legal Clerk of the
Northwest Arkansas Newspapers, LLC, printed and published in
Washington and Benton County, Arkansas, bona fide circulation,
that from my own personal knowledge and reference to the files
of said publication, the advertisement of:
City of Fayetteville
Ordinance 5507
Was inserted in the Regular Editions on:
July 5, 2012
Publication Charges: $ 77.82
Lja3 Cw
Karen Caler
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This \\ day of d , 2012.
cawt
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:
**NOTE**
Please do not pay from Affidavit. Invoice will be sent.