HomeMy WebLinkAbout111-00 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 111 _n0
MICROFILMED
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AD00-22 AMENDING THE
MASTER STREET PLAN BY ELIMINATING A COLLECTOR
STREET BETWEEN PRAIRIE AVENUE AND WEST SIXTH
STREET WITHIN THE PROPERTY AT 404 WEST SIXTH
STREET, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH SCHOOL
AVENUE AND WEST SIXTH STREET AND RECLASSIFYING
PRAIRIE STREET WEST OF WEST AVENUE AND
GOVERNMENT AVENUE BETWEEN PRAIRIE AVENUE AND
WEST SIXTH STREET AS COLLECTOR STREETS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby approves AD00-22 amending the Master Street
Plan by eliminating a collector street between Prairie Avenue and West Sixth Street within the
property at 404 West Sixth Street, at the northeast corner of South School Avenue and West Sixth
Street and reclassifying Prairie Street west of West Avenue and Government Avenue between Prairie
Avenue and West Sixth Street as collector streets.
•
•
PiAtEit AND APPROVED this 1st day of August , 2000.
ATTEST:
By: 7S* /.Jv�irf
Heather Woodruff, City ClerK
J
APPROVED:
By:
Frefl Hanna,`ayor
t1/4 f
C r
•
NAME OF FILE: 4a /// �U
CROSS REFERENCE:
Date
Contents of File
Initials
gtoo
.4.,
///-av
/rm-Od
.4 444,frir t
,
,ape,)
(s %'ak-t
j
`.
< ii.ezie al
0 / )G
4.✓.. i 4�oirr .���
y/G-vv
. -� 7
- 9
r4 , d (44, y,c(
4-% Dd
Ja 4 o
S&
2 4/',9;w&&' lam, . aai,
g -9 --Da
aA9)/
di'
/
FAYETTEVPLLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Dawn Warrick, Associate Planner
FROM: Perry Franklin, Traffic Division Superintenden '
DATE: July 10, 2000
SUBJECT: COLLECTOR STREET ISSUES
MILL DISTRICT PROJECT
Although I have been out for a couple of weeks, I appreciate you getting the material to me concerning
the Mill District project. Back before the Walton Arts Center was constructed, there were attempts to
get a collector from North Street south by the proposed Arts Center to south School. This route has been
looked at several times through the years. Because of the alignment problem at Prairie Street, the
condition of West Ave. south of Center Street and the close proximity of School Ave., I do not believe
West Ave will be improved any time soon. After reviewing the material, I feel I must agree with Mr.
Ernie Peters recommendation. I do feel that the use of Government Ave. as a collector would be more
centrally located between the traffic signal at College & 6th and the traffic signal located at Hill & 6th .
Thanks for this opportunity to offer my comments. If you need any further information, please give me
a call at 575-8228.
PLF/plf
4
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYE11 EVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone:
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 501-575-8264
TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission
FROM: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: June 26, 2000
AD 00-22.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) was submitted by Tom
Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for property located at the
northwest comer of west 6`h Street and south School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is to amend
the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street (West Avenue) which is designated
to run along the property's western boundary between 6`h Street and Prairie Street.
RECOMMENDED MOTION
Staff recommends the applicant comply with the condition of the previous Master Street Plan
amendment (AD99-01) with the condition that they dedicate the right-of-way for a collector
street along the west property line.
BACKGROUND
On March 22, 1999 the Planning Commission agreed to relocate a proposed collector street on
the applicant's property to the west along the abandoned railroad right-of-way which is •
designated to run along the property's western boundary between 6th Street and Prairie Street. A
condition of approval was that the applicant dedicate sufficient right-of-way along the western
boundary of the subject property for a proposed collector street. Staff has attached the 1999
Planning Commission staff report and minutes of the previous request on this item.
410 410
STAFF REVIEW FORM
X AGENDA REQUEST
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of August 1, 2000
FROM:
Tim Conklin
Name
Planning Public Works
Division Department
sr
REVS&
Pot&
ACTION REQUIRED: An ordinance for (AD 00-22) amending the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a
collector street between Prairie Ave. and W. Sixth Street within the property at 404 W. Sixth Street, at the northeast
corner of S. School Ave. and W. Sixth Street and reclassifying Prairie Street west of West Ave. and Government Ave.
between Prairie Ave. and W. Sixth Street as collector streets.
COST TO CITY:
Cost of this Request
Account Number
Project Number
Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name
Funds Used To Date Program Name
Remaining Balance Fund
BUDGET REVIEW:
Budgeted Item _ Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget Manager Administrative Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
Acou`nnttinng Manager
C.
Cit C\ Atot ey
Purchasing Officer
Date Internal Auditor
Date
Date ADA Coordinator Date
l-11-00
Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 on July
10, 2000 to recommend approval and to forward the request to the City Council for final consideration.
tmen •irectbr
Services Director
7—/G/-cy3
Date
Date
717/'
Dpt
40
Daate
Cross Reference
New Item: Yes
Prev Ord/Res #:
Orig Contract Date:
Orig Contract Number:
•
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 4
AD 00-22.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) was submitted by Tom
Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for property located at the
northwest corner of west 6ih Street and south School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2,
Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is to amend
the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street (West Avenue) which is designated
to run along the property's western boundary between 6th Street and Prairie Street.
Odom: • The first item that we have under new business tonight is AD 00-22.00 submitted
by Tom Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for
property located at the northwest corner of west 6`h Street and south School
Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy
Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is to amend the City's Master Street
Plan by eliminating a collector street which is designated to run along the
property's western boundary between 6t11Street and Prairie Street. Staff
recommends that the applicant comply with the conditions of the previous Master
Street Plan amendment with the condition that they dedicate the right-of-way for a
collector street along the west property line. Staff, are there any other notes that
you would like to add to that?
Conklin: At your agenda session one of the Commissioners did request Perry Franklin take
a look at this item. He has written a response to that and in summary, he does
agree with Mr. Ernie Peters, the traffic consultant on this item, with regard to the
relocation of West Street over to Government Avenue. That's all I have
Odom. I'd ask the applicant to please come forward at this time.
Sharp: My name is Robert Sharp. I'm the architect for the Mill District Project on the
corner of School Street and 6`h Street. First I want to begin by apologizing for
bringing this matter back a year later. When we were working on the project
several issues kept coming up. I would like to summarize shortly the information
that we have now that we did not have when we came before you previously. We
have done some consultation with a traffic engineer, Ernie Peters of Little Rock.
We have completed our real estate appraisal and budgets. We've consulted with
local urban design organizations such as the UACDC and the Downtown Dickson
Enhancement Project. We've also done quite a bit of work with the Trails
Committee on trying to develop a bicycle trail between 6th Street and the Dickson
Street area. We have also just become a lot more familiar with the site. Basically
when we look at that site and try to find a way to make it inviting and successful
in a vibrant area, the first thing we think of is that this area does not need more
asphalt. There are streets everywhere, large amounts of parking everywhere and it
just didn't seem to be a good idea to have yet another street going through that
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 5
•
property. We've looked at different alternatives and we think the best one is to, if
a collector street is needed, have it occur in the Government Avenue right-of-way.
The reasons for that are, we think, first of all, it makes West Street a safer street. I
think if West Street tied directly into 6th Street it will encourage cut through traffic
from 6' Street which is not a good street for that kind of traffic. The site lines are
short because of the topography. The street is narrow. It has a big retaining wall
on the east side which makes expansion difficult. It has houses right up against
the street on the west side which makes expansion difficult. So, I think, in
general, making this a wide safe street will be almost impossible. We think that if
you encourage more traffic on this chute it will make things very dangerous for
the residents along West Avenue. Also, I think that if we use Government
Avenue as the collector street it will make a better intersection. It's a four way
intersection instead of a T intersection. It would allow traffic flow to go across 6'
Street. If it ever did become a signalized intersection it's about half way between
Hill Street and School Street. It's a better place for an intersection if traffic ever
builds up along that route. We think that eventually will provide better
connectivity to the city because Government Street could eventually tie into 15"
Street which ties into I-540. In general I think connectivity would be better along
that street and the traffic engineer agreed with that assessment. Another issue that
has come up is plans for a bicycle path along the western edge of our property. In
general the Sidewalks and Trails Committee has been working to develop a
bicycle trail along the abandoned railroad right-of-way. They have gotten
appraisals on the land and made a commitment to make that a reality. If we could
get the collector street moved we could put the bicycle trail on our lot along the
western edge which would connect 6'" Street all the way to the downtown area
with a nice wooded trail that goes along Town Creek. I think some of this type of
alternate transportation is going to be of far more benefit to the city than yet
another collector street. The other issue we were concerned a little bit about was
where West Street comes into Prairie and takes a short jog and then picks up
again. When we talked to the UACDC they said this was the type of intersection
that is particularly dangerous to pedestrians because traffic has to make a little zig
zag and that is a lot of the problems that they have been having up at the
University. I've included that letter in with our submission. A final comment is
we think that amending this Master Street Plan is a way to encourage people to
develop areas that need help. It's going to be something that the city won't have
to spend any money to encourage this development. In fact they will save
maintenance fees on this piece of collector street. I don't want to go through all
of the petitions and recommendations that we have collected. They are all in this
packet that we submitted to you. We've got a lot of support from the neighbors
for this scheme. We have support from the Downtown Dickson Enhancement
Project, the UACDC, Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks, and finally, today, Perry
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 6
Franklyn issued a memo in which he basically, as Tim Conklin said, agreed that
this solution is the better solution for the collector street. I would conclude by
asking you to give this consideration one more time and help us to develop this
project. Thank you
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Odom: Thank you Robert. We may have some questions but first I'd like to ask if there
is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Please
come forward at this time. Please identify yourself by your name and your
address before you begin.
Littell: My name is Annee Littell and I live at 411 West South Street which is the corner
of West and South. I have a double lot that fronts on West Street. So, even
though my address isn't West Street, I feel like I'm a neighbor. I've seen just in
the last month an accident where you come over a hill and it's blind and then you
go down. People like to come kind of fast. It may be kind of fun to do. A
neighbor was pulling out of their driveway and they got hit. Nobody was hurt. I
don't think the topography is at all suitable to emphasize that street as more of a
collector street. School Street, right next door, I guess is listed as an arterial, but
it seems to function as a collector. I'm not sure of all the differences but having
that major street right next door, one block away, it seems to me we could funnel
traffic coming from the library, assuming that happens, could go up Mountain and
down School and School already connects with 6th Street. It just seems to me like
having two streets a block apart that are both major collectors is overkill and
would really hurt our neighborhood. The street is narrow and has no sidewalks on
my block of it. If you were to do what the collector needs, that 70 foot, would be
probably impossible to make it truly a collector street. So I would just like to
support this as a property owner.
Odom:
Thank you very much. Was there someone else who wanted to speak to this? If
you all could please come up and line up behind each other so we don't spend a
lot of time waiting.
Ostner: Hi, my name is Alan Ostner. I'm a resident of 111 West Avenue. Pretty much
what Annee has just said I really agree with The topography of West Street is
really steep. I don't know if you have been over there but we refer to it as the
roller coaster. When Dickson empties out at 2:00 am it's a free for all The police
would be way too busy if they ever stopped there and tried to pick up drunks and
speeders. You can get a great deal of speed going down and then the hill slows
you coming up the other side and everyone knows that. They love to do it both
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 7
ways. It is very narrow. Expanding it to the east would be difficult. You would
either run into the new library or the big retaining wall at City Hospital, or have to
bulldoze houses and living rooms. The point that Rob brought up about the
railroad right of way becoming a street between Prairie and 6`h Street, I really
agree with. The short jog near Wilson Park comes to mind to me and how
difficult that is when you are going along the western edge of Wilson Park and
you have to tum and go west and then turn again just to get onto Gregg is very
cumbersome. If we have a chance to not create things like that I think it's a good
idea Just from a user standpoint. As he said the CDC does recommend that it is
dangerous and I can see that from a pedestrian standpoint too. West Street is very
dangerous. We've been planning on coming down here as a neighborhood
anyway. We need traffic calming. We need a stop sign. The number of near
misses far exceeds the number of collisions from backing out, as Annee was
saying. The volume is very low on that street but I would bet the number of
collisions in perspective to the low volume would make a very high incident rate.
I think West is pretty dangerous and I think widening it would exacerbate the
problem. Thank you.
Kelly: Hello, I'm Laura Kelly. I'm glad Alan brought up the fact ofjoy riding and
catching air on the hill. I didn't realize that was ever an occurrence until I was on
that street just the other day. I was just walking across West Avenue, there is no
sidewalk. I was just walking from one yard to the next and a car, I didn't realize
cars tried to catch air. It was going faster than just trying to go fast and it had to
veer into the other lane almost into the ditch. As the property owner pulled up a
few minutes after, I realized if he had been coming up that hill a moment earlier I
would have witnessed a lot of death. I just can't convey enough that the
topography there being virtually unalterable. It would be a major revision to
cause a safer street to increase or encourage traffic there. Also If anyone has any
questions regarding the bicycle plan, I have been working with Chuck Rutherford
and the Sidewalk and Trails Committee for years and years and years. How I
would love to see this connection down 6th Street. I live down there past 6'1 Street
and my son and I are on our bicycles now and we would love a safe way to town.
Thank you.
Odom: Thank you. Anyone else like to address us on this issue?
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Odom. Then I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant.
Does anyone have questions for the applicant or staff?
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 8
Ward: Tim, what are we giving up by giving up this West Avenue? Is this something
that the City Council will have to make a final determination on?
Conklin:
Yes. City Council will have to amend the Master Street Plan in order to relocate
it if the motion is to relocate it over to Government Avenue. Once again, back in
1999 the agreement was to relocate it off the alley that was east of the feed mill
and move it over to the railroad right-of-way. At that time they agreed to dedicate
70 feet of right-of-way sufficient for a collector street. They did approach the
city. I did ask for them to do some research on this and make a presentation to the
Planning Commission. As staff I felt that bringing this back a year later after an
agreement was made to dedicate the right-of-way that we should have some
evidence that this is not a good idea and that we should abandon having a street
connection down to 6'" Street. That's why they went out and talked to different
groups and got a traffic study done with regard to whether or not it should be at
this location or moved further to the west. So to answer your question, are we
giving anything up, based on Perry Franklin's letter and the traffic engineer it
sounds like we are not really giving anything up other than allowing the Master
Street Plan to be amended and there will not be a requirement on their part if they
redevelop this industrial site with their mixed use project to have to build that
street.
Hoover: Tim, is it my understanding then that in lieu of the street they are going to give a
right-of-way for the trail coming through their project?
Conklin: Let me just make sure everyone is clear on the issue of this right-of-way for the
trail. Under our Master Street Plan, within that 70 feet of right-of-way, it has a
provision for two 6 foot sidewalks which is a 6 foot sidewalk/multi use trail. That
would have been a requirement as part of this project. If we required them to
build the street they would have to build the trail. So they are not really giving us
the multi use trail if we give up this right-of-way because that would have been a
requirement.
Odom: But I believe that Commissioner Hoover wanted to make sure we weren't giving
that up also. That's part of the plan. It will stay.
Conklin: Well, my understanding this evening is they will be going to the Parks Board to
ask that the right-of-way for the trail be credited towards their greenspace
requirement for their residential units in this facility. I think one question that I
have and I asked Chuck Rutherford to raise it this evening was with regard to who
would pay for the cost of construction of that trail. Typically the developer would
pay for half of the street. So you have a 14 foot from centerline, curb, gutter,
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 9
storm drainage and the 6 foot sidewalk. I do want to make sure when a Large scale
development comes through that we do understand who's paying for that trail.
I'm not sure who's going to be building that trail. That's what I'm saying this
evening.
Hoover: That brought up a question, is that how we've handled other developments? That
the developer is building the trail in past approvals?
Conklin: If there is a Master Street Plan requirement, yes, they are building 6 foot wide
sidewalk/multi use trails. We may be giving that up. Rob, I'm not sure if you are
able to answer that question tonight. Are you building the trail? Constructing it?
Sharp:
In the past when we have talked, Tim, informally we were just giving the land for
the trail. We are giving the land along our side and also we are giving a piece of
land up near Center Street that we've purchased to facilitate the trail. So we are
giving them two parcels of land to allow them to build the trail. This trail will be
built as they build the entire Prairie Street Trail. We'll be back soon with a large
scale development plan that will show all of these details.
Odom. Commissioner Hoover, did that answer your question?
Hoover: Yes. Thank you.
Marr: Tim, I guess my question is the recommendation of city staff was to have it
remain the same and now that the additional information has come through would
you concur or would you stand by this?
Conklin: Well, with regard to the additional information, I would agree that there is reason
to relocate it over to Government Street. This information that was submitted to
the city at 2:30 on Thursday. Staff was not able to write any new staff report.
Since then we were able to get with Perry Franklin and he does agree with Ernie
Peters that it is a good idea and something to look at to relocate it over to
Government Street. The only concern I had, once again, was relocating over to
Government Street we are removing the requirement to construct a trail because
normally we don't require people to construct trails on private property whereas,
if it was left in that location they would be constructing a 6 foot wide
sidewalk/multi use trail.
MOTION:
Ward: Mr. Chair, I think that with all of this said and to facilitate the redevelopment of
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 10
Shackelford:
that area down there, I want to go ahead and recommend approval for AD 00-22
especially since our Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, agrees with you on
your concept of moving it over to Government Street. Maybe when it comes back
through large scale we will be able to look at some give and take on the trails and
so on. But I will recommend approval at this time.
I'll second.
Odom. I'd like to speak to the motion if I could. I think potentially what you have here
is, if in fact the City Council approves the amendment to the Master Street Plan,
you don't have the requirement any longer of the trail program. Now I think that
Robert is saying that they are going to do that and it's going to be incorporated
into their plan, but if we are in fact giving something up it's, number one, city
property that we currently have dedicated but number two, it's also the potential
loss of use of a trail. Am I right?
Conklin:
Odom:
Conklin:
Ward:
That's correct.
Because there is no longer a requirement that the trail be put there since there's no
longer a Master Street Plan requirement.
It would make me more comfortable if you incorporated into your motion that this
agreement or idea of this dedication of this right-of-way for a trail subject to that.
I'll amend my motion to where we do get the dedication of the necessary tracts for.
the trail.
Shackelford: I'll agree to that on my second.
Odom:
Bunch:
That takes care of my concern.
Mr. Chair, then we get back to the question of who is going to build the trail since
you are giving up the street and not having to build the street then it seems like,
should that be included in the same motion?
Odom. I think that would be more properly addressed at the large scale development.
Tim, with regard to the construction, who's required to construct the trail? That
will be more appropriately addressed at large scale development. Is that correct?
Conklin:
That is correct. I can tell you right now we typically don't require trails to be
built as part of development. That's not a normal requirement. That's why I
•
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 11
brought it up this evening. I do believe we are potentially giving that up.
Bunch: Even though it's not a normal requirement since we are giving up a right-of-way
and a street can we include that as a requirement? Is it permissible to do that?
Hoffman: Mr. Chair, this may have happened before you were on the Commission, but I
think we did require a trail and require that one be constructed on the Marinoni
property by the creek or wetland area in lieu of a sidewalk along what would be
an unused intersection. So, I would think that we would have an opportunity at
that time to make that requirement.
Conklin: Yes, we did do that in the past and that sidewalk, instead of having it go along
Shiloh Drive we did have it come back in on the property.
Hoffman: And it was a trail?
Conklin: Yes, it was classified as a trail. Keep in mind we did require that when we did
amend the Master Street Plan a year ago that they dedicate 70 feet of right-of-way.
We are giving up 70 feet of right-of-way too so I guess to answer your question
we have in the past required items from applicants as a condition of amending our
Master Street Plan.
Marr: Would we require that at this time or at large scale development?
Conklin: If you want to make it crystal clear for the applicant you should require it now. I
would say in your motion that they would be required to build the trail If you
want to wait till large scale development we can also make that a condition of
approval at large scale development. I guess I'm concerned about doing that.
Legally we don't have any ordinances in place that allow us to require that.
Shackelford: I have a question of the applicant and I think this will weigh into this, did you not
mention that there is another piece of property that this group owns that you are in
negotiations on deeding a part of that property for the trail in another area, is that
correct?
Sharp: That's right.
Shackelford: So, there are other aspects that will go into play here as far as negotiation on the
trail and who builds the trail and who's going to pay for the trail. There is another
piece of property that the city is looking at trying to get ownership of, is that
correct?
• •
Planning Commission Minutes
July 10, 2000
Page 12
Sharp: That's right.
Shackelford: I personally think that, that negotiation we could handle at the large scale
development. I think we have put the applicant on notice that that is something
that we are going to look at in large scale development. I understand the city's
position and I don't think we need to give away that right either but I'm not
necessarily sure that we have to address that at this point.
Odom. Ultimately this is the City Council's call anyway. They will receive copies of our
notes and note that we are definitely concerned about who is going to construct
the trail.
Conklin: That's correct.
Odom: But as the motion stands now it does not address who's going to construct the trail
only that it be dedicated.
Conklin: Yes.
Bunch: Mr. Chair, can I make a little bit of a campaign speech here for the Committee for
the revision of the Master Street Plan, in looking at this and remembering what
West Avenue used to be like between Prairie and Mountain, prior to the time it
was widened and paved and what the traffic pattern used to be like then, I would
encourage people in the neighborhood to attend the meetings of the
Subcommittee, particularly the one this Thursday that has already been
announced, to request the change in status of West Avenue between Prairie and
Mountain Streets to request to be put back to a local street rather than a collector.
If that's what you would like in looking at the comments from the neighbors and
the petitions on this, I would encourage you to avail yourselves of that process.
Odom. Any further discussion on the motion?
Marr:
Mr. Chair, I'm in support of the motion to actually change the Master Street Plan.
I do want to go on record of saying I would not be in support of losing what
would have otherwise been a developed trail by the developer. I think that we had
that as part of this approval. That's the one thing I struggle with here. Not only
did we have the dedication we would have had it built. So when it comes through
with large scale I Just want to make it clear that's the position I'm coming from. I
do support this change.
Allen: I have the same concern.
06/07/2000 12:04 5014420721
City of Fayetteville
Planning Office
VIA FACSIMILE
ROB SHARP ARCHITECT PAGE 02
1111
June 7, 2000
Dear Tim,
Two items have come up in regard to our proposed development on the comer of
6th St and School Ave. in Fayetteville. We wish to request an amendment to the
Master St. Plan and a lesser dedication of Right of Way along the southern facade
of a two-story building located on the comer of 6th and School.
Master St. Plan Amendment ou ^ �z
The amendment to the Master St. Plan we are requesting would entail the removal
of the continuation of the West St. ROW, which now is located on the west
portion of our property. We are requesting either the removal or relocation of this
ROW to Prairie and thence east to school, or to Prairie and thence west to
Government and then to 6t° ST.
The reasons we are requesting this amendment are several.
-The proposed intersection of West and 6th would be less than 300 feet from the
existing intersection of two primary arterials (6th and School). This separation
between the lighted intersection of two primary arterials, and a potentially lighted
intersection of a collector ST. and an arterial, may not be far enough to satisfy
State traffic standards. .We are presently researching this issue. In any case it
may not be enough to satisfy sound traffic planning.
-Traffic along West Ave. does not warrant the existence of Collector St. status.
Improvement of West is not currently on the city's Capital Improvement Plan and
would in all likelihood meet staunch opposition from the residents along West.
-The cost of installing the new collector street would be prohibitive in terms of
both dollars and land lost, and would probably render the project impossible to
complete profitably.
Request for a Lesser ROW Dedication A n 00-23
We are also requesting a lesser dedication of Right of Way along 6th St. This
lesser dedication would only apply to the area adjacent to an existing two story
building near the corner of 6th and School. Current ROW along this section in
• front of this building- is now 40 feet from the centerline. We are requesting that
the existing right of way remain as is from the comer of 6th and School Avenue to
the existing 27' utility easement (the former alley). This building is in good shape
• • and is an important component of our development for this block. The 55' ROW
P.O. Box 3494
Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2
•
06/07/2000 12:04
5014428721
ROB SHARP ARCHITECT PAGE 03
•
component of our development for this block. The 55' ROW rule from centerline on principal arterials
was instituted so that a landscaped median might ultimately be placed down the length of 6th St. It is our
understanding that the Installation of this median is not likely to ever occur.
Please post these requests for public notice as soon as possible so that we might resolve these issues and
get our project started.
Sincerely,
MillB;.*ict Cf7€c/r- i vytP
Thomas Bourdeaux,
Manager
P O. Box 3494 Fayetteville. Arkansas•72702.::.
• •
TOWN CREEK BUILDERS
CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY MANAGMENT
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
RE. COLLECTOR STREET ISSUES
MILL DISTRICT PROJECT
Mill District LLC has purchased the property at the northwest comer of the intersection of
6th Street and School avenue, formerly the Campbell Soup Feed Mill, and is attempting
to develop a mixed use project on that location.
That comer is one of the most visible and important undeveloped properties near
downtown Fayetteville As a component of the Mill District's forthcoming Large Scale
Development Plan for the redevelopment of this site we feel it is appropriate and
necessary to request an amendment to the Master Street Plan.
HISTORY
The Mill District asked for and received an amendment of the street plan at this location
in March 1999 At that time, Campbell Soup still owned the property and the amendment
was requested as a contingency of purchase. In the year following this amendment, after
more extensive planning and preparation, we have found that this street has a detrimental
effect on the design and feel of the new development, on the feasibility of the project, and
on the safety of the surrounding neighborhood.
When we asked for the previous amendment, we were fighting a deadline that was
imposed on us as a part of a complex real estate transaction. In retrospect, we should
have studied this aspect of the project more thoroughly. We now have the following
information, which in March of 1999 we did not possess:
• Consultation with a traffic engineer, Ernest J Peters.
• A completed real estate appraisal.
• A construction budget based upon schematic designs.
P.O. Box 3494
Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2
page 1
• •
• Consultation with local urban design organizations such as the UACDC and the
Downtown/Dickson Enhancement Project, Inc.
• Our work with the sidewalk and trails committee concerning the Prairie Avenue trail
has progressed significantly.
• Our familiarity with the site and neighborhood has increased dramatically.
We regret asking this body to recommit time to this issue; we regret asking the planning
staff to use their resources in this manner. However, we simply feel that the best solution
for all parties has not been reached, and cannot be reached until this issue is reconsidered.
It is our feeling that the Master Street Plan, to be effective, must be a living breathing
document; as such, changes must be examined from time to time.
THE SOLUTION
We are requesting that Collector Street designation on the Master Street Plan be removed
from the strip of land located in the western portion of the Feed Mill Property A more
suitable alternative — better for the City of Fayetteville, the surrounding neighborhood,
and The Mill District — would be a designated route south on West Street, then west on
Prairie Street, then south on Government Street to 6th Street. (Please see page 8.)
Alternatively, the Planning Commission might consider removing Collector Street
designation along West Avenue between Mountain Street and 6th Street.
Please refer to our diagrams on pages 5 through 8 to review the various configurations.
THE ADVANTAGES
• Moving this collector street designation creates a safer street. Directly linking 6th
Street to West Avenue will inevitably encourage cut through traffic and increased
speeds. Any increased traffic causes concern and danger for those along West
Avenue. Neighbors there are concerned with their safety as they back out on to West,
and their children play m small yards near the street. Included in this packet is a
petition submitted by residents along West opposing this Collector Street designation.
(Please see page 19 and pages 21-24.) At one point two blocks north of Prairie,
driveways lying just below the crest of a hill suffer very limited site distance.
Increases in traffic induced by the new 6th Street connection would make this
situation more hazardous than it is presently.
• Moving this collector street improves automobile traffic flow between Prairie and 6th
Street. Using Government Avenue as this area's outlet to 6th Street eases traffic flow
because it allows a four way intersection equally spaced between the existing
intersections at School Avenue and Hill Avenue. In addition, a block long jog along
Prairie Avenue will be easier to negotiate than a quick zig zag. Wiule this will ease
automotive flow adjacent to Prairie Avenue and 6th Street, the two distinct 90 turns
between 6th and West should still have the effect of discouraging fast cut through
traffic onto West Avenue.
P.O. Box 3494
Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2
page 2
•
• Moving this collector street provides better connectivity for the city. Because no
intersection to the south exists at the point of the proposed intersection of West and
6th, through traffic must be routed either east or west on 6th This makes another turn
necessary to reach the neighborhoods and I-540 access that lies south of 6th Avenue.
Making Government Avenue a more prominent intersection provides connectivity to
neighborhoods lying south of 6th as well as an alternative access to I-540 along 15th
Street. As traffic builds in Fayetteville this alternative to I-540 will increase in
importance.
• The collector street would jeopardize the plans for a bike path to 6th Street through
the Mill District. We believe it is important as a matter of principal, and as a part of
the 2020 Plan, to encourage and maximize the opportunity for alternative forms of
transit. The Mill District and Town Creek Builders have agreed to donate land and
have solicited support from other landowners and neighbors in an effort to make the
Prairie Street Bike Path a reality. Requiring a dedication of land for an additional
street usurps the land available for a bike path. We feel that as a matter of policy,
developers should be encouraged to explore alternative forms of transit.
• Continuing West Avenue through the Mill District property is not optimal in terms of
pedestrian safety. Please refer to the letter provided by the UACDC, pages 14 and 15.
They have found that "...intersections too close together, coupled with unaligned
streets and cross walk locations, can be quite hazardous to pedestrians."
• The project and MSP amendment requested enjoy wide support from the community.
Please review the enclosed petitions and letters of support, pages 18 through 24.
• Amending the MSP is a way for the city to encourage Urban Pioneers. The
Fayetteville General Plan 2020 specifically requests pnvate mixed use development
on the south side of town: "Much of south Fayetteville is shown as a mixed use area
because it is in need of redevelopment and can accommodate future development."1
The Mill District partnership is taking a real and significant risk in attempting to
redevelop this area of town. We have met with significant opposition and skepticism
m the financial community as to the viability of this area of town. The resources we
would be required to expend on the dedication of land, and possible construction of a
street, would reduce the amount available to make this a project of lasting impact and
quality. We are hopeful that the successful and profitable completion of this project
will provide a rising tide effect for the entire neighborhood and the City as well. It is
likely that our project will spur further development in this heretofore downtrodden
neighborhood. This project, properly executed, will increase property values in the
area, and will provide an exciting and attractive entrance to the Town Square and
Town Center from I-540 and the Sixth Street corridor.
• Revising the MSP is a Cost Effective method for the city to further their goals. Our
request to amend the Master Street Plan will have a great impact on the success of our
project and on the contentment of the residents along West Avenue. Yet this
1 Fayetteville General Plan 2020, December 1995, page 74.
P.O. Box 3494
Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2
page 3
• •
requested amendment will have no negative impact on city coffers. In fact, the city
will save maintenance costs by not having to care for yet another street.
SUMMARY
We are attempting to build a large project that will in every way assist the city in meeting
its 2020 goals, assist this area's transition from an industrial realm into a true
neighborhood, increase property values, and reduce the need for costly new infrastructure.
For all the reasons listed above we ask for your approval of the proposed amendment to
the Master Street Plan.
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
Diagrams
Context Map page 5
Existing Master Street Plan page 6
Railroad Right of Way Plan page 7
East/West Option page 8
Peter & Associates, Engineers, Incorporated Letter page 9
Peter & Associates Resume and Partial Client List pages 10 - 12
Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project Letter page 13
UACDC Letter pages 14, 15
Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks Letter pages 16, 17
Letters from the Citizens
Art Hobson Letter page 18
Armee Littell Letter page 19
Mikel Lolley Letter page 20
West Avenue Petition pages 21 - 24
P.O. Box 3494 Fayetteville, Arkansas
7270 2
page 4
CONTEXT MAP
page 5
E
I
EXISTING MASTER STREET PLAN
LEGEND:
:M"� w =•�� COLLECTOR - 70ft. R/W, 36 ft. PAVEMENT
MINOR ARTERIAL -- 90 ft. R/W, 52 ft. PAVEMENT
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -- 110 ft. R/W, 56 ft. PAVEMENT
20 ft. MEDIAN
1
page 6
0
RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAN
LEGEND:
M COLLECTOR -- 70ft. RNV, 36 ft. PAVEMENT
MINOR ARTERIAL -- 90 ft. RIW, 52 ft. PAVEMENT
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -- 110 ft. R/W, 56 ft. PAVEMENT
20 ft. MEDIAN
page 7
EAST / WEST OPTION
LEGEND:
:� = ==: COLLECTOR -- 701t. R/W, 36 ft. PAVEMENT
MINOR ARTERIAL -- 90 ft. R/W, 52 ft. PAVEMENT
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL -- 110 ft. R/W, 56 ft. PAVEMENT
20 ft. MEDIAN
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
/ / ENGINEERS, INCORPORATED
June 30, 2000
Ms. Laura Kelly
Robert Sharp Architects, Inc.
311 West Dickson Street
Suite 103
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: West Street Proposed Master Street Plan Changes
Dear Ms. Kelly:
As you requested I have reviewed the materials you provided relative to possible changes to the
City of Fayetteville Master Street Plan (MSP). Your proposal to change the MSP to provide
Prairie Street between School Street and Gregg Avenue and Gregg Avenue between Prairie Street
and 6`s Street (Highway 62) and then connecting south via Government Avenue has merit and is
worthy of consideration by the City. That proposal offers connectivity between existing Principal
Arterials along routes that are practical. The connection is not direct to 6t° Street, but neither is
the existing MSP alignment of West Street nor is the alternative of utilizing the railroad
alignment.
Alternately, taking a broader view of the MSP in the area, I suggest the appropriateness of the
City considering reclassifying School Street from Prairie Street north to Dickson Street from a
Minor Arterial to a Collector, more in character with its actual function and the reality of
limitations which exist along it (right-of-way constraints, closeness of existing structures,
topographical considerations, sight distances, etc.). This street is unlikely to ever be reconstructed
to 52 feet of pavement in 90 feet of right-of-way per the City's MSP standards. Along with this
reclassification, I would suggest consideration be given by the City to simply removing West
Street form the MSP from Mountain Street south. In the area south of Mountain Street, School
Street, even if never improved, should be capable of serving the collector street function for that
built-up area.
Please let me know if there are any question concerning these thoughts and opinions or if
additional information is needed.
Sincerely,
PE CIATES ENGINEERS, INC.
Ernest J. Peters, .E.
President
P.O. BOX 21638 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72221 (501) 225-0500 FAX: (501) 225-0602 page 9
9
PETERS & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC.
Peters & Associates Engineers, Incorporated is a small firm, uniquely qualified with extensive
experience in a variety of engineering projects. The Firm offers several distinct
characteristics:
Peters & Associates is an Arkansas Corporation with its office in Little Rock for
fifteen years; a proven commitment to continue to provide professional engineering
services to public and private sector clients.
Our small staff necessitates direct involvement of principals in all aspects of the
work and provides direct communications and close coordination.
Peters & Associates is a recognized expert in the area of traffic engineering that
has provided professional traffic engineering services for many private and public sector
clients.
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. is a Corporation; an organization dedicated
to the study and solution of traffic safety and engineering problems.
Considerable practical experience has been gained in many phases of
transportation and civil engineering with a substantial amount of this experience being
gained while employed by cities, counties and state agencies. This direct practical
experience with governmental units, together with relevant professional consulting
engineering experience, is judged to be invaluable in working both with public and
private sector clients.
Experience gained as consulting engineers includes work with city, state, county,
and the Federal government as well as select private sector clients.
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. feels that this varied. experience record
allows the Firm to bring special expertise and judgment to projects undertaken. Mr.
Peters alone has twenty-two years of experience, seventeen of which has been in
Arkansas.
Mr. Ernest J. Peters is a Registered Professional Engineer in Arkansas as well
several other states, is the President of the Corporation and Principal Engineer for the
Firm and is supported by other personnel for clerical, drafting and surveying as
needed.
Mr. Gregory B. Simmons has over twenty-six years experience in traffic
engineering. He has worked for state and local government agencies, as well as,
consulting engineering firms.
Mr. Randy Tolbert brings strong computer and technical skills to the Firm and
has both extensive training and experience in AutoCAD.
page 10
•
PARTIAL CLIENT LIST
✓
City of Morrilton
✓
City of Benton
✓
Arkansas State Highway and Transportation
Department
✓
City of Ada, Oklahoma
✓
State of Arkansas Transportation Safety
✓
Garland County
Agency
✓
Independence County
✓
University of Arkansas
✓
Washington County
✓
University of Arkansas Medical Sciences
✓
Benton County
✓
University of Central Arkansas
✓
Manatee County, Florida
✓
University of Arkansas at Little Rock
✓
Systematics, Incorporated
✓
Little Rock Regional Airport
✓
First Real Estate Development Corp.
✓
City of Little Rock
✓
Melvin Simon & Associates
✓
City of Fayetteville
✓
Hering -Marathon Group
✓
City of Fort Smith
✓
United Artists Real Estate Group
✓
City of Hot Springs
✓
Deltic Farm & Timber
✓
City of Jonesboro
✓
Dillards Department Stores
✓
City of Springdale
✓
Wal-Mart Stores
✓
City of Bentonville
✓
Charter Medical Corporation
✓
City of El Dorado
✓
Baptist Medical System
✓
City of Texarkana
✓
Hospital Corporation of America
✓
City of Pine Bluff
✓
Lykes Health Systems, Inc.
✓
City of Searcy
✓
Humana Hospital Corporation
✓
City of Conway
✓
Lifemark Corporation
✓
City of Batesville
✓
Tampa General Hospital
✓
City of Arkadelphia
✓
Lakeland Regional Medical Center
✓
City of Hope
✓
Askew Enterprises
✓
City of Van Buren
✓
Walker Real Estate
✓
City of Camden
✓
Rector -Phillips -Morse
page 11
✓
Flake & Company
✓
Robert J. Richardson, Engineers, Inc.
✓
Barnes, Quinn, Flake & Anderson
✓
Sasaki Associates, Inc.
✓
Aliright Parking, Inc.
✓
Gorove/Slade & Associates
✓
Vratsinas Construction Company
✓
Research & Planning Consultants, Inc.
✓
American Stores Properties, Inc.
✓
Hilbum, Calhoon, Harper, et, al.
✓
McClellan Development
✓
The McMath Law Firm
✓
Trellis Square Shopping Center
✓
Mastriana & Christiansen
✓
Regas Restaurants
✓
Rose Law Firm
✓
Lakeside School District
✓
King & Spaulding
✓
Springdale School District
✓
Warner & Smith
✓
McMehee School District
✓
Bramhall, Duncan & Ohm, P.A.
✓
Austin Development Corporation
✓
Gilker & Jones
✓
Metrocentre Improvement District
✓
Roscopf & Higgins, P.A.
✓
Walnut Valley Home Owners Association
✓
Wiggins Christian & Gamer
✓
Parish of St. Theresa
✓
Aurell Radey Hinkle & Thomas
✓
Garver & Garver Engineers, Inc.
✓
Area Marketing/Research Associates
✓
Hoffman-Prieur & Associates
✓
Opinion Research-KDB Associates, Inc.
✓
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc.
✓
Fagin Advisory Services, Inc.
✓
Mickle-Wagner & Associates
✓
Fendley Development Company
✓
Summerlin Associates
✓
Schickel Development Company
✓
Architecture +
✓
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
✓
KoberBelluschi Associates
✓
CEI Engineering Associates, Inc.
✓
Engineering Consultants, Inc.
✓
Blass'Firm
✓
Brown & Dedman, Inc.
✓
Castin Massie & McGetrick
Uancement
iDo"to"eDlck' n Project, inc
July 6, 2000
Tim Conklin, Director
Planning Department
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Tim and Commissioners:
Member of the Planning Commission
The City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
I am writing in support of the redevelopment of the old Campbell Soup Feed Mill and the Mill
District's proposed amendment to the master Street Plan.
Redevelopment of this property will support the efforts of the Downtown/Dickson Enhancement
Project to create a vibrant and vital downtown community. Mixed use projects such as the Mill
District will bring businesses, offices and residents into this area which lies between the DDEP
target area and the South Fayetteville Development District. This project could be a powerful
catalyst and set the standard for future economic development enhancing the efforts of these two
projects on the south side of Fayetteville and could significantly impact adjoining property values.
We urge the Planning Commission to concur.
Additionally, after reviewing the alternate route proposed along Prairie to Government for the
extension of West Street, we concur with the developer that this is a viable alternative that
alleviates the close proximity to the intersection of School and 6th Street of the collector street
currently shown on the master street plan.
Moving the collector street would be a way for the City of Fayetteville to send a strong vote of
confidence to both encourage quality development, encourage mixed use development and bring
life to the south side of Fayetteville.
I appreciate your consideration of this issue.
Sincerely,
Tun Foster,
President
P.O. Dcx 3573, FdwR vile, All 72702-3573 100 W. Cen6 v Sulk 301 Fmjeilrvi le. AR 72701 • 501-571-3337
..n nn I
•
University of Arkansas
Community Design Center
104 North East Avenue, Suite 1
Fayetteville, AR 72701-6038
Tel 501-575-5772
Fax 501-575-7045
Em uacdc@cavem.uark.edu
UACI)C
July 3, 2000
Planning Commission
City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain Street
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Dear Commissioners:
Throughout the fall of 1999, the students and faculty of the University of
Arkansas Community Design Center studied the assets and needs of south
Fayetteville. Among their main recommendations to local residents were four
directly relating to the Mill District proposal that you are now considering:
• South Fayetteville needs to seek private investment to improve
opportunities for residents.
• The area needs neighborhood commercial centers to function as
social gathering places and to serve the needs of residents close to where
they live.
• More residences are needed in the area, especially those in close
proximity to public transportation and to the downtown square.
• Mixed -use development will help to meet all of these needs.
The Mill District project is exactly the sort of mixed -use development that our
students and faculty recommended. This level of architectural development will
guard the public interest, allowing the prominent corner location to graciously
serve the City rather than to extend the eyesore and waste space already
prevalent in the area. In addition, the developers propose to create and expand a
downtown pedestrian and bicycle path where it can readily serve residents for
more -
page 14
Steven L. Anderson Chair in Archilecnve and Urban Studies
UACDC
Fayetteville Planning Commission
July 3, 2000
Page 2
both transportation and recreation. In our view, this is a logical use of the old
railroad right-of-way, as is the concentration of parking on the western edge of
the property away from South School.
The UACDC study also spoke to the need to maintain the neighborhood grid in
south Fayetteville. However, a road only one -block long in the Mill District, not
aligned with any existing or proposed street, would not make any logical
connection to the city grid. It is our opinion that such a road could create
confusion and danger due to its close proximity to the Sixth Street / School
Street intersection and in its misalignment with West Avenue. In fact, we
recently assisted the University Police Department with a crosswalk safety study
and found that intersections too close together, coupled with unaligned streets
and crosswalk locations, can be quite hazardous to pedestrians.
Representing the UA Community Design Center during the absence of its
Director, David Glasser, we therefore urge you to permit the Mill District
development to proceed without a new street on its western edge. By choosing to
build using existing structures and to save the very valuable trees of the Mill
property, the developers are enabling the City to easily approve what we believe
will be a great asset to Fayetteville.
Sincerely yours,
Harriet H. Jans Jill Anthes
Assistant to the Director Project Designer
page 15
JUN -29-0O 11:43 FROM:NCA1TRA ID:501�9642 PAGE 2/3
Rex Dufour
Executive Director
Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks
P.O. Box 4173
Fayetteville, AR 72702-4173
June 29, 2000
Tim Conklin, Director Planning Department
& Members of the Planning Commission
The City of Fayetteville
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Mr. Conklin & Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing in support of the Mill District development and the Mill District L.L.C. 's
proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan.
The Mill District represents exactly the type of dense, in -fill development that any city
needs in order to support alternative forms of transportation. Excessive pavement only
harms the potential land value of a city's core (not to mention creating runoff and
floodwater problems). One solution is to encourage dense enough development to
support mass transit as well as allowing area citizens access to most goods and services
within walking or cycling distance. Sprawl, the alternative to in -fill development,
destroys a city's core, encourages automobile dependence, and hurts low-income citizens
unable to afford the expense of car purchase, maintenance and insurance_
The Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks (BCO), a local non-profit organization, has been
working with the City of Fayetteville to produce a Master Trails Plan to encourage safe
transportation alternatives to the automobile. Now I understand that the City of
Fayetteville wishes to add a Collector street in the exact location of an important
block —long extension of a potential bicycle trail currently known as the Center/Prairie
Trail. This trail is slated to follow the abandoned railway corridor from the Walton Arts
Center Parking lot to Prairie Street. The Mill District would like to donate the required
land to oontinue tbie came trail through to Highway 67 The.. Riryrle.. Cna.litinn of the
Ozarks strongly encourages the City of Fayetteville to do all it can to facilitate this
bicycle trail, including dropping the plan to build a collector street along this same
section of railway corridor. The road and the trail cannot co -exist in the same right-of-
way without destroying the feasibility of the Mill District_
A weakness of the present planning process in Fayetteville is that when considering
traffic volumes and street design, absolutely no consideration is given to alternatives to
the car! In such a context, we are forcing citizens to depend on a form a transport that
JUN -29-00 11;44 FROM:NCAI$iTRA ID:S0109e42 PACE 3/3
pollutes, is costly to use and maintain, requires vast public and private expenditures on
environmentally -unfriendly infrastructure that allows no opportunity for exercise or
appreciation of our beautiful town.
The residents of the south side could benefit far more from access to a multi -use trail
(that will pass within a few blocks of the new library) than from yet another Collector
Street. The potential residents of this development could enjoy a quiet, safe walk or ride
to town rather than the noise of more traffic to their west.
In the short term, I strongly encourage you to consider exempting this development from
the Collector Street requirement, allowing the multi -use trail to be considered as "taking"
a portion of the traffic volume that would have been induced by the presence of a
Collector Street. Vote for vital urban fabric, an opportunity for alternative transport, and
the health and vigor of this depressed side of town. The opportunity for a bicycle trail all
the way to Highway 62 (6th Street) should not be missed. The removal of the Collector
street could be the key to its success.
In the long term, I would urge the Planning Department and Planning Commission to
consider providing developers with options that would allow for creative alternatives to
"auto -only" street standards, including the possibility of assigning a certain portion of
predicted (and induced) traffic volume to multi -use trails at the same time as allowing
narrower traffic lanes.
I appreciate your consideration of this issue.
Respectfully,
Rex Dufour
Executive Director
Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks
page 17
29 June 2000
Tim Conklin, Deirector, Planning Dept, City of Fayetteville
Members of Planning Commission, City of Fayetteville
FROM: Art Hobson, Professor Emeritus of Physics, UA, phone 575-5918,
fax 575-4580, email ahobson@comp.uark.edu
SUBJECT: Redevelopment of the Campbell Soup Feed Mill
I have learned a little about the project to redevelop the old Campbell Soup Feed Mill at
6th & School. It sounds like just the kind of urban project this town needs, It reminds me
a little of the excellent development that Greg House and others are involved in around
Dickson Street.
Fayetteville needs to focus on infill, midtown homes and apartments, clustering, [nixed
use, walking communities, affordable midtown housing, sidewalks, bike trails, and mass
transit. Especially in midtown (including 6th & School), the city needs to get away from
automobile -centered highway strip development with unsightly sprawling parking, and
move toward pedestrian -centered mixed use development with lots of sidewalks and bike
paths. The Mill District project appears to support many of these objectives.
I have heard that the city's Master Street Plan calls for turning West Avenue into a
"collector street," i.e. widening the street to make way for even more cars. I understand
that a new extension of this route would then cut right through the planned development.
This is a terrible idea. Many studies (e.g. "Generated Traffic: implications for transport
planning" by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, www.islandnet.com/-litman) show
that if you build more roads, you will get more traffic and more congestion. The answer to
congestion, especially in downtown and midtown areas where space is precious, is
alternative transportation: arrange things so that people are encouraged to walk, bicycle,
and bus, and so that driving is discouraged.
In addition to generating traffic, midtown road -widening and road -building spreads out
the business/residential area, making it both more difficult (because of all the roads and
cars) and farther for people to walk to get anywhere. Midtown parking lots also have this
effect, so I hope that parking at the redevelopment will be minimal, hidden, and not spread
out horizontally on the land surface.
1 understand that the Mill District project will assist in the purchase of additional land to
make the Prairie Street bike path a reality. Such bike paths arc exactly what Fayetteville
needs. They reduce traffic (each bike means one less car) and they improve Fayetteville's
quality of life. But a new collector street on the the Mill District property will apparently
make the inclusion of a bike path on Mill District property impossible. This argues, once
more, against the new collector street.
I hope that the city will work sympathetically with the developers of this excellent
project. It's the kind of development that our town needs.
page 18
s sty . �._ aoTtL
-
�,e�o�emx,�
`I-t-°t�-C�
t O
t4 k
6a.
P—eed40-
o Tho-""td
(/Jfrecck
" page 19
• 1 •
Mikel Loliey
706 Treadwell #1
Fayetteville, AR 72701
(501)957-1400 Home
(501) 271-4100 Office
(501)271-4102 Fax
m l kel c h a rrl s on tre n ch. co m
July 6, 2000
Dear Planning Commissioners,
As a resident / home owner of downtown Fayetteville who has made considerable investment in
their immediate neighborhood, it gives me pause for concern when I read In the paper and watch
on government access television as our planning commission appears to be so out of step with
the needs and desires of the residents who have made this Investment to live close to the
downtown area. These residents have made a deliberate and conscious decision to LIVE in
downtown, and we need the security that this investment has not been in vain. We need to know
that cut -through automobiles are not a force more powerful than the residents who live downtown.
Case in point. As a resident, I do not wish to see our planning commission cave In to the
dominance of the automobile on every issue. I do not wish to see people who merely want to cut -
through the downtown area given preference to the people who live there. Your plans to widen
West Street and extend it through to 6'h Street are sending this resident all of the wrong signals.
This plan invalidates the residents on West Street who have made a considerable investment to
renovate quite a few of the homes on that street. It invalidates the residents on nearby streets
such as Hill Avenue and Duncan, since it says to us that the cites commitment to us is merely as
a cut -through to other parts of town. This resident wants to see cut -through traffic discouraged
from cutting through the center of town, and encouraged to use 71 Business, which is only 300
feet from your proposed extension. This resident wants to see cut -through traffic encouraged to
use the existing by-pass and the proposed by-pass on the east side of town. This resident wants
to see speed romps, and more stop signs on streets such as West. Hill and Duncan to curb
excessive speed in our neighborhoods that threaten our children and our pets. Many cities on the
east coast and many European cities have elected to not cave into the pressures of this type of
traffic, and those cities have elected to prize their History, the Pedestrian, and the investments of
the Residents that have chosen to live in the central hearts of those cities. Please send this
resident all of the right messages, that their investment is not in vain, that their city planners
respect, understand, and value their commitment to live downtown, and that the city planners will
go on to make decisions that will offer the security that other future residents will need before they
make the same decision to invest in their downtown as a quality place to live.
page 20
WEST AVENUE PETITION
TO REMOVE COLLECTOR STREET STATUS FROM WEST AVENUE
SOUTH OF MOUNTAIN
We the property owners along West Avenue believe that this road is unsuitable
for increased traffic flow generated by widening the road or continuing West
Avenue south to connect with Highway 62. We call for the City of Fayetteville
to remove the 70'-0" right-of-way Collector Street designation from all of West
Avenue that lies south of Mountain Street.
Sgf/A &c%1 off'
/Name (Printed) Si ature
"Address
tiffs-Je1r�ekuC� l: & AauwC
Name (Printed) Signature
ep-f-
Address
Name (Printed)
Address
Name (Printed)
k fbAa"%Ww .
Signature
Signature
f
Address
page 21
C
WEST AVENUE PETITION
TO REMOVE COLLECTOR STREET STATUS FROM WEST AVENUE
SOUTH OF MOUNTAIN
We the property owners along West Avenue believe that this road is unsuitable
for increased traffic flow generated by widening the road or continuing West
Avenue south to connect with Highway 62. We call for the City of Fayetteville
to remove the 70'-0" right-of-way Collector Street designation from all of West
Avenue that lies south of Mountain Street.
flinria L.d1 iI 1J'Q,L
Name (Printed) Signature
P II 14), O IL t-c�V� e-Vr /)� . 7`t V. 117o1
Address r '
CUV n tV O c i.v C5'f' 1 .S Ouctk.)
L' HA-Rcad t, Bar OCt 1--4ezr
Name (Printed) Signature
O? J, wEJ, FAYe'rlcyt Ccr &&
Address
Name (Printed)
Address
Name (Printed)
Address
JMIkIlIC
Signature
Signature
Address
page 22
. • •
WEST AVENUE PETITION
TO REMOVE COLLECTOR STREET STATUS FROM WEST AVENUE
SOUTH OF MOUNTAIN
We the property owners along West Avenue believe that this road is unsuitable
for increased traffic flow generated by widening the road or continuing West
Avenue south to connect with Highway 62. We call for the City of Fayetteville
to remove the 70'-0" right-of-way Collector Street designation from all of West
Avenue that lies south of Mountain Street.
Name (Printed)
Address
A
:A tan 05tuer
Name (Printed)
Address
c.
Name (Printed)
Address
Signature
Ap , -la.?B l
Signaturefist , p
+2-2701
en
Signature
Name (Printed) Signature
Address
v �
Name (Printed) Signature
it
Address
page 23
WEST AVENUE PETITION
TO REMOVE COLLECTOR STREET STATUS FROM WEST AVENUE,.
SOUTH OF MOUNTAIN
G kizc i of Fxrh4eq !(- '$ j64/t.
We the believe that this -read is unsuitable
for increased traffic flow generated by widening the road or continuing West
Avenue south to connect with Highway 62. We call for the City of Fayetteville
to remove the 70'-O" right-of-way Collector Street designation from all of West
Avenue that lies south of Mountain Street.
s4 u 4 �y� rf2�
ame (Pr uud)� Signs ute27
..
M
Y/1
'II
7
N
1 t 1
7817 W,"I V CT- t. 11 1. a
y
Sat
AD00-22.00 - Town Creek Builders - Closeup
EE
O
y i
1st Prepesed
Alternate, !
EO Route 1t1 I w
E_ I
LI
-�I
.-, Route 2nd Proposed
Alternate
w i y Route �'
z I i
w 5TH JO
c9 The MITI Distract
Project Site p
I I I __ __ _ ___
' I HI i � I t•;. l'I ��' U
M1a
6TH I IC
A HH. F
__ P ____ _P1H E
N 200 0 200 Feet
Existing Master Street Plan
I P
I.
V
V
Fii
I
r
U
I SOUTH i
U
II J
//
i
O
0
U� O
h
ARCHIaALO yELL
4TH
PRAIRIE II /
111
w
W
5TH
z 5TH
11.
0
PRIVATE a 0
w
p _
O N K
U
o N O
U
a
6TH
p\N\/i
_4_ 7TH
300 0 300 Feet
N
Principal Arterial
W E —_-� Collector
Local Street
S
Proposed East / West Option
r Ii
j1
I/
V
I
(l
It
I
y
r I II =
V
I
{ O�
h'
sa' I I ARCHIBALD YELL
4TH
PRAIRIE
do
LAN
Z r L 5TH
5TH
PRIVATE V' CD\�p1u
NT
rc
J o F
= U 0
N -J U
6TH
it
r
.N
r
7TH
300 0 300 Feet
N
Principal Arterial
WE Collector
Local Street
S Proposed Collector
FAYETTEVWLE S
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDE
To: Tim Conklin, Planning Director
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: August 9, 2000
Attached is a copy of the resolution amending the Master Street Plan. The original will be
microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
cc: Ed Connell, Engineering
Clyde Randall, Engineering
John Goddard, Info. Tech.
Scott Caldwell, Info. Tech.
RESOLUTION NO. 111 -nn
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AD00-22 AMENDING THE
MASTER STREET PLAN BY ELIMINATING A COLLECTOR
STREET BETWEEN PRAIRIE AVENUE AND WEST SIXTH
STREET WITHIN THE PROPERTY AT 404 WEST SIXTH
STREET, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH SCHOOL
AVENUE AND WEST SIXTH STREET AND RECLASSIFYING
PRAIRIE STREET WEST OF WEST AVENUE AND
GOVERNMENT AVENUE BETWEEN PRAIRIE AVENUE AND
WEST SIXTH STREET AS COLLECTOR STREETS.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,
ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby approves AD00-22 amending the Master Street
Plan by eliminating a collector street between Prairie Avenue and West Sixth Street within the
property at 404 West Sixth Street, at the northeast comer of South School Avenue and West Sixth
Street and reclassifying Prairie Street west of West Avenue and Government Avenue between Prairie
Avenue and West Sixth Street as collector streets.
APPROVED this 1st day of August , 2000.
APPROVED:
By: >r/
Fre Hanna, Mayor
By:
Heather WoodAd,`City Cl r♦
A