HomeMy WebLinkAbout67-73 RESOLUTION• :r
67
RESOLUTION NO. Si -73
•
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS,A'PPROUING THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS.
WHEREAS, The Housing Authority of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas
is carrying out the Center Square Urban Renewal Project, Ark. R-105;
heretofore approved by the Board of Directors, and;
WHEREAS, The University of Arkansas has
in non-cash credits to satisfy the City
the project costs, these credits having
agreed to furnish
of Fayetteville's
been generated by
$1,352,954.00
share of
the Uni-
versity's expenditures in connection with land acquisition for ex-
pansion and development of, the campus; and
WHEREAS, The Department
that the Governing Body
the development plan of
credits; and
of Housing and
of the City of
the University
Urban Development requires
Fayetteville, Arkansas,
of Arkansas to validate
approve
said
WHEREAS, In furtherance of the validation procedure for said non-
cash credits, the Planning Commission of the City of Fayetteville,
Arkansas, held a Public Hearing the 17th day of November, 1970, on
the development plan prepared for the University by Hamilton -Butt
Associates, which is being used as a guide for development and ex-
pansion of the campus; and
WHEREAS, the;Planning Commission, by Resolution P.C. 23-70, dated
December 1, 1970, found that the planning of the University and the
comprehensive development plan of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas,
were not in conflict.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
1. The development plan prepared for the University of Arkansas is
found to be in general conformity with the comprehensive develop-
ment plan of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, and same is hereby
approved.
2. The determinations contained herein shall not be construed to
limit the University's authority to revise, amend, or in any other
RESOLUTION - Page 2
way alter, its,development plans
growth of the University.
1
1 le
ATTEST:
with regard to the expansion and
‘11 -
;APPROVED: ;APPROVED:
AA . . < •
Lai city Clem
,ice 94,5
atd4,419
Mayor
CAr.,FLJ; i`LANNE:: AND CONSULTING ANClilT'!"_C'F:i
II i.ILTON • BUTT A5SOCIATLS
. 7 G- 8 G 1
•
•
s.
A REPORT Or THE
DEVELOPMENT -OF :i11E
CAMPUS PLAN
FOR THE
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
APRIL 1967
RECEIVED
OCT 2 01970
OFFICE OF CITY NG
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
1 ; 14 NE SEVENTH STREET
A1A
AIM
. GGA IN HF V 11_L(C FL0NI El ., 2 Jb1
1.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The, studies and proposals for the replanning of University
of Arkansas have extended over a period of tato years.
This time period is not unusual in replanning a large and
o'd'establis.hed university campus. All the material devel-
oped in these studies of the total campus is too extensive
to include in this report, and for sake of clarity only
t;elfiral plan as approved by the Campus Planning and
Development Committee Is shown. Like an iceberg, thel"efor'e,
tFe bulk is rot visible. For purposes of reference, however,
tlere is given a brief outline of the consecutive steps which
formed the basis of this final recommendation.
',value of this plan lies in the fundamental issues on
which it rests, and these all lead directly to land use.
This cardinalpoint must not he lost in the consideration
of the shape and arrangement of buildings, or alluring
landscape features. As an illustration, the three major
area's of use relate to the academic, housing and recre--
ational activities. In each case, The needs have been
thoughtfully considered--they,envision not only suffi-
cient land
uffi-cient.land for each major activity and subdivision there-
of,'but a careful balance of the relationship between
each, so ss to provide an efficient operation and adlnir•.-
istration of the total campus.
1
•
•
An appropriate and adequate amount of land has been' desig-
nated for each of these areas. Some of that shown will
have to be acquired to meet the requirements. However, if
appropriate land is dedicated to these definite purposes
as shown and with recognition of the modern traffic and
parking demands, the more difficult problems which arise
in expanding a large college campus can be resolved on a
logical basis.
It is taken for granted that a master plan is to serve
primarily as a guide for future expansion, and that ital-,
lows considerable freedom in the detailed development of
sections of each mayor area. The fact remains, that if
the simple principle of adhering to these dedicated areas
is disregarded in the years ahead, the total plan will be-
come -unbalanced, which will result in the overlapping of
functions and the loss of value in the plan itself.gllt
is worth repeating, that LAND USE is the key to success-
,_
nil; campus planning .,
ue to the. progressive increase in number of motor ve-
LD:
hicles on the road each year, an important consideration
in !,the use of land is to avoid, at all costs, a public
traffic artery which will divide or pierce the main campus.,
If any •strect within a campus shows signs of becoming a
public thoroughfare, concerted efforts should be made to
remove it, or change its use, before it has been made into
a multi -lane artery for motor cars., Such movement through
the campus of traffic unrelated to the university will
eventually destroy the successful functioning of the
A
campus)) ;;any large universities are now attempting to re-
capture the heart of the campus for the use of the pedes-
trian.
edes-trlan. they seem to have forgotten that the college campus
was conceived and designed to permit ease of pedestrian
movement, between givers points under a restricted time
schedule,
7The first reaction of the planning consultants, was that
the most difficult problem facing the University of
Arkansas in its expansion program to accommodate future
enrollment, would be the elimination of vehicular traf-
fic which is not concerned with campus life. To be
specific, it was felt that unless this type of vehicular
traffic carh eventually be diverted from Maple Street to
,the north perimeter of the future campus, that much -of
the -effort and expense Of planned expansion will have
been: in yain. ! -
This point is developed more fully later in the report,
and the campus plan which appears -at the end of the
report indicates a revised road system. The layout
shown represents the first step.in the total expansion
program; whereby the east -west public -traffic can be
removed from Maple. Street and.diverted north to
3
•
Cleveland Avenue. It would be well to make Cleveland
Avenue into a multi -lane traffic artery, with easy grades
and connections through to the heart Of the city. The
traffic would then automatically follow this course, in
preference to Maple Street. This is the history of traf-
•
fic flow in every city where tight traffic lanes have
been given competition through -the installation of broad,
easy -flow thoroughfares.
The attached plan shows a temporary connection along
N. Gregg Avenue. This would give Cleveland Avenue a
direct route to the center of the city should there be
a delay in continuing due east across the railroad tracks.
The consultants anticipate that the campus will inevi-
tably extend northwards to North Avenue within the next
decade. This is the logical direction, because of ter-
rain, to accommodate the "massive" growth which state
universities will experience in' the years ahead. At
that time North Avenue will become the main carrier of
east -west vehicular traffic in the community and its
environs.
As a part of the total traffic problem, it should not
be overlooked that adequate parking facilities roust be
provided as. the campus becomes a, city within a city.
The total population will probably reach 20,000 with
full growth, when recognition is given to total
11
•
enrollment Of students, the adnrl ni st ration, the staff, the
help employed to maintain the plant and grounds, the visi-
tors, etc.
The parking spaces should, in general, be planned on the
perimeter wherever possible. There will be sufficient
internal vehicular traffic to completely disrupt the
campus pedestrian movement unless the entire campus is
carefully zoned, and car's assigned to specific areas.
The plan attached indicates major parking areas, .but it
Is realized that more wi11 be required as time .goes ort.
It might be well to leave the thought that a campus is
never finished, in the sense that the normal building
development Is completed. Where new Ideas are being ex-
plored through great research protects noir located on
university can'ipuses, the physical setting,changes accord-
ingly, which is an encouraging situation.
11. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT
The following chronological• summary will be'helpful in
future years to those individuals and groups charged with
the responsibility of guiding the growth of the institu-
tion.
The first meeting between the Campus. Planning and Develop-
ment Committee and the planning consultants was held on
March 11 and 12, 1965, with President Mullins in atten-
dance at the principal sessions.. These discussions of
necessity were exploratory in nature and dealt largely
with questions that would round out the total picture of
need. Previous studies made by the University showed
that enrollment for 1964-65 was 7,952, with a projected
enrollment for 1975 of 13,645. Additional factors re-
quired by the consultants for an understanding of the
total needs were:
A. Total teaching or academic space in square foot-
age to accommodate this number -of students (after
making'adjustrnents for all existing space that would
be acceptable), and
S. Total number of single students that should be
housed on campus property (making allowance for all
satisfactory existing spaces). Facilities to secure
this information were arranged by the University.
•
•
•
In the meantime, the.planning consultants presented a ten-
tative plan to the committee, designated Scheme A. The
principle purpose of tlils-first scheme was to secure re-
actions to certa in basic questions, namely;
1. Direction of groath;
2. Relationship of major functions, and
S. Recognition of a bad traffic situation on campus.
In broad terms the consultants kneiY
from past experience
whit the g; -neral requirements Would be for academic space
and to(" student housing or suburban type campus,
•
inS Unci'., an enrollment Of 1! 00 students with normal
percentage of, spice for scle!;ce c...d post graC!ilate work,
would require some 82 acres devoted to academic purposes
to carry out the type of campus existing at the university.
The present academic area bound
by. Arkansas, Maple,
G irl<lnd, and Dickson; contains a total Of some 63 acres,
Obviously, more acreage would be required unless a dif-
ferent type of campus with a h:gh.r density of space per
acre was a t tern;)ted.
Schcni
spec
A contempin is ed tract: ing greater use of the open
at the eastern end Of the present academic area
mentioned above
The possibility of building along
, Arkansas Avenue was even discussed, whereby the land
would be used more intensely
and
the campuswould turn
inward on a courtyard. It tt s pointed out that in this
•
hi i1 speed age it is difficult'for a person to enjoy the
view looking from Arkansas Avenue toward University Ball
While driving.. On many campuses the monumental type of
planing has given over to more densely planned buildings
which depend upon open interior courts to'pCovide a set-
ting for bu1ldin;;s, nd for the space_ needed
to
avoid con
gcstion. This approach for development of the academic
arca was riot loo ed upon ';(ith favor'by the members of the
Planning anal Development Committee.
There was consider..
able discussion as to the major direction of growth for
the academic arca at this time, nol<'ever, and the discus-
sion served the consultants well in drafting subsc;uent
proposals.
As to the total number of studcrts to be housed on the
campus, ti
versities try to house betv-:i:er, r0 to Go percent of its
single students on campus property. This recant' that it
would eventually become necessary to house some 7,000
single students. At least three thousand new spaces
would be required in dormitories, and with proper set-
ting this r;ouidscan an additional 30 acres for the.
purpose. No such available land was evident, In passing,
the consultants questioned the policy of building high-
rise dormitories. as close together as noted between
Garland .and Ozark Streets, with no apparent opportunity
e
consultants recognized that most modern uni-
8
to gain a desirable setting for such buildings, without
facilities for free recreation and some parking. In such
case the short range gain proves to be a. long range loss.
As a futhen suggestion tilC consultants felt that the
.land to the: north of the existing could be explored
Expansion of the acad'eNic area and housin
y. By so estab
11sh i ncj the direction of growt. i, it v;ouid then be possible
to study the relationship of function (item 2) and also
the Li aff iC ci rculatlorl (itemj/. the planning consultants
feel that. with Nl S
ap e t.reet g ro. i ng in importance as an
•
artery for pub11C traffic rot connected ls'i t1t
the he lin
s ity the situation M111 become 1 possible. There appears
to be rio practical solution other than to dive ;t public
traffic further north and let riaple Street become a secon-
dary campus road. On the long range basis, public traffic
should be diverted to c'r'est North Street, but even on a
short range plans immediate steps should be taken to make
Cleveland Avenue attractive as a traffic artery and it
should be 50 extended to tali: cast and the west that it
can handle the population that is growing on the rest side
of the camp us.•
The consultants had the benefit of discussion with the.
membership of tie Planning and Development Committee on
all of these questions and Scheme A had served its purpose.
9
•
•
tate in April 1965, the consultants forwarded a second
scheme, developed on the basis of the previous discus-
sions, which was labeled Scheme B. It was predicated on
expansion to the north vlich had several advantages, not
the' least of which was that it woul d abut Some land near
West NOrtl Street and L.everrette /venue on which an op
t ion had been secured. )iii s. land was reasonably flat
and would lent ,itself to a good free.a-ecreation area•
Balanced v;ith other phases of growth, expansion of both
academic and housing are;is would then flank the existing
academic areas where land was reasonably level to a
point about halfway between" Douglas
Street and Cleveland
Avenue Such a schen)e for expansion '.could, of course,
be pred icatcd upon the interruption of the traffic flow
on Maple Street.
There was considerable discussion and exchange of ideas
between consultants and the Planning and Development
Cal litter: regarding Scheme ti over the next six months.
During that period the consultants again visited the
University for clarification. It becsn.e clear on this
visit that the University felt that it could not afford
to expand to the north in the manner suggested in
Scher,e D because of the considerable investment in build-
ings irnroe:'iately across
Maple Street. The alternative.
was to explore the possibility of expanding the academic
area to the south, but retaining the idea of housing
10
•
expansion on the north side, probably flanking Cleveland
'Avenue.
On October 5, 1965, the consultants forwarded Schenk C
proposing extension of the academic area to include the
land bounded by Dickson, "Fairview Road, Ozark and Harmon
Streets, Some development for academic buildings north
of i' aple St ri.et was proposed In the. original Scheme C
prompted by till: functional a rcnge.nlent for the Col lege
of Education. Additional housing to the north fronting
on Cleveland Avenue was indicated. After careful consid-
eration of Scheme C, the Planning and Development
Committee was able to send the consultants some very
er.tensive and helpful criticise in February of 1966. In
this report the Committee raised a question as to whether
there was sufficient square footage. in the academic area
on Scheme C to accommodate the proposed enrollment.
This necessitated some further research along these
lines and a report was made by the consultants later in
February which established that, with a margin of safety,
the planning should and did provide for approximately
two and one-half million square feet. The above is based
in part upon further information supplied by the Univer-
sity indicating the.t the existing space consists of
y68,4ii9 gross square' feet and that construction and obso-
lescence will force -the removal of 99,417 square feet in
the ultimate development. The figures supplied by the
•
University trere for teaching space only and did tot include
the library or buildin,s for physical education. These
spaces should be included and a rough c::timate indicates
that the total square footage in academic buildings would
be nearer 1,150,000 grass square feet.
Academic space nced.is the function of several factors,
including: total FTE student enrollment, FTE faculty,
the student: mix. (percentage of freshmen, sophomore,. juniors,
seniors and graduates), tFie level of research, and number -
of professional schools. For this reason it is extremely '
difficultd .n
to.tie do .f the number of Square fact which
should be allowed per student, and to date most attempts
to do -this have not been very successful. Experience indi-
cates, however, that 160 gross square feet per student is
adequate for ;most schools. Thies, 2,500,000 square feet of
academic space would provide for approximately 15,600 stu-
dents on the campus at Arkansas.
in April of 1566, the consultants again visited the campus
and reviewed Scheme C with the Planning and Development.
Committee. It should he noted that the consultants had
omitted all consideration of academic areas north of Maple
Street. As a result of the discussion in the April,rireet-
Ing, the plan was revised to sho:, housing west of pre Sent
fraternity area where the preparation of the plans for
dormitories to' Mouse 800 students were completed. The
12
consultants reccgfi ized that further development of hour—
ing in thissouthwest section of,the Campus ixoulcl encroach
.on land available for recreation to the extent that addi-
tional land would be required. In subsequent revisions
of the plan, additional land was shown west of Razorback
Road for this purpose...
In November of 1966 the consultants. presented Scheme
a g it i
and
there was gene!
agreement that With some minor
modifications the basic concepts'Nere acceptable.. It was
the basis for the scheme which Is presented for long-range
develorinlent.
In brief, the
pi
p ro7oses e. direction and
extent of growth as fol
1. Academic Area: At least twcive acre- south of
existing, acaCeillic area. Although not indicated on
the pli.rl, it would be desirable to a:.cquire also the
additional land (approximately cc res between
Harmon and Duncan, Williams and Center Streets for
future research space in Science and engineering..
2. Housing: South of Fairview .Road, approximately
eight acres. North, Douglas to Cleveland and Garland
to Levcrrc:tte, approximately 22 acres.
3. Athletics and Free Recreation: West of
Razorback Road approximately 26 acres., The relation-
ship of the major functions of academic, housing,
athletics, and the core area is best demonstrated on
the drai:dng of the Campus Plan, as is the proposed
traffic pattern.
111. I ECOMMENI'TIONS
•
Planning for long range develop:cent of a university is
such a complex problem with so many imponderables that
it regtii•ts simplifiion.for presentation. Our recom-
mendations concentrate. on expansion by acquiS l tion Of
land to acco;itliodate the students and faculty in 'the
three n)iJor functions of teaching, housing, and parking.
1. The consultants feel that the acquisition of
the land for expansion of the academic area to the
south is no longer a subject for discussion if the
long range development plan is to be meaningful.
It must be done without delay. The apartment develop-
ment fronting on Dickson Street can be by-passed
initially. The remaining six acres south of the
apartment land is adequate for at least 175,000
,quare feet of ciassrcoOff ICE space. Every ef-
fort should be made to take advantage Of the con-
tour of the land on this Site. The square footage
mentioned above is predicated upon a four-story
building near Ozark, at least five stories in the
building fronting on Harmon Street and seven stories
in the building at the south end of the site.
It is recognized that heavy student tra'g`ic
cannot move higher than the third level -in these
buildings and faculty offices or research space
1 rl
would be above that level. With.proper planning the
building on Harmon Street could beenteredfrom the
west side at the second level (or perhaps the third)
and provide'traffic movement down and up for easier
Classroom use.
The hexagonal -building fronting on Dickson Street
is suggested for lecture space for large classes and
could be designed for extensive use of visual aids
and media.
2. Acquisition of property to the north of the campus
for housing is vital if the institution is to house
50% of its proposed enrollment. The two complexes
shown on the plan could accommodate up to 1600 stu-
•
dents. each, with four towers and a large comnons area,
including food service.
Approached from the south,' these complexes are ap-
proximately ten feet belo•a the highest elevation (1450)
of the campus. This is an important consideration in
terms of -student movement. The slope down to Cleveland
Avenue can work to good advantage in providing student
rooms which look beyond the traffic and parking, and
in providing grade level access to service areas -t
the lo•rer floors.
The land area shown is approximately 22 acres, ex -
eluding the buffer zones along Cleveland Avenue and
Garland Avenue. A density of 145 students per acre
•is not out of line with the 100 to 120 which many
campuses have with low-rise buildings. It is impor-
tant that sufficient parking and open land area for
landscaping and recreation be provided, however.
In this regard the flat, open land to the northeast
of the site which was mentioned earlier in the sum-
mary would be desirable.
3. The acquisition of the property south of Fairview
Road for housing will not only make it possible to
accommodate 800 students but the proposed road devel
opment on this property will go a long way to ease
traffic congestion in the academic area. Provision
is also shown for easier pedestrian movement from
the new housing which is under construction to the
academic area.
Acquisition of property west of Razorback Road
for athletics and free recreation is required for two
reasons. First, a strong Intercollegiate Athletic
program, which already exists in football, will con-
tinue to grow in other sports resulting in additional
space requirements for spring sports and baseball
particularly. Secondly, the increase in student
enrollment will require intensive use of present and
additior'al space for Physical Education; increased
student housing will demand additional "free recrea-
tion" space. The new plan shown contemplates land
16
east of Ra Zorhack Road for i,nten Ive use for Physical
Education and "free recreation" because it is most
convenient. The area shown west of Razorback Road
should be used for those activities which extend over
a longer period of time.
It should be noted that the
consultants have considered that the northern portion
of this area. is high quality residential property at:
this time and would probably be acquired at greater
cost. Nevertheless, it: is our opinion that it will
ultimately be needed because of its location.
5. Traffic and parking -- the importance of planning
a traffic pattern which will enable Community traffic
to bypass the campus has Seen described earlier in
this report. It seems obvious that the planning for
the university and the planning for the community of
Fayetteville must he closely coordinated in all
respects and particularly in major thoroughfare. plan-
ning. Experience with many other institutions proves
that lack of coinmunicaticn,and cooperation can lead to
the kind of errors r.: ich arc so costly as to be e:l-
most incalculable. As an example, one midwestern
state rio'•.i faces the relocation of an interchange on
an interstate high'ITy which blocks the expansion of
one of its universities. Fayetteville and. the