HomeMy WebLinkAbout50-02 RESOLUTION•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. 50-02
A RESOLUTION APRoVING THE GENERAL PLAN 2020.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
Section 1. That the City Council hereby approve the General Plan 2020.
A copy of the plan is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and made a part
hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this 19th day of March, 2002.
APPROVED:
iftb
By: itt
DAN COODY, Mayor
le ! •
cttr '
serlirAi.
*Cer
'5 •Alt" e..r Woodruff, City CI
'‘•
•
NAME OF FILE:
CROSS REFERENCE:
Resolution No. 50-02
•
03/19/02
Resolution No. 50-02
02/15/02
Planning Division Correspondence
02/07/02
Planning Division Correspondence
02/11/02
Planning Commission Minutes (Pages 41-45)
03/05/02
Staff Review Form
03/21/02
Memo to Tim Conklin, City Planner, from Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
NOTES:
•
•
•
-
It
-
"j
M1
i
_..
-
L.
• :I
rte' '._
.
tY
-
_
r
I
r•
•
City of Fayetteville
GENERAL PLAN 2020
2001 Revisions
Table of Contents
PART A. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Chapter 1 Setting and Organization of General Plan 1-1
1.1 History of Plan Making 1-1
1.2 The Planning Process 1-6
1.3 Principles of the General Plan 1-6
1.4 Nature and Scope of the General Plan 1-7
Chapter 2 Community Context 2-1
2.1 Location 2-1
2.2 Planning Area 2-2
2.3 Fayetteville Growth Transitions 2-3
2.4 Regional Growth Transitions 2-5
Chapter 3 Population Characteristics 3-1
3.1 Population Trends 3-1
3.2 Gender 34
3.3 Ethnic Origin 3-5
3.4 Age 3-6
3.5 Households and Group Quarters 3-11
3.6 Educational Attainment 3-14
3.7 Population Projections 3-15
Chapter 4 Housing 4-1
4.1 Housing Occupancy and Tenure 4-1
4.2 Residential Housing Type 4-3
4.3 Residential Building Permit Activity 4-4
4.4 Age of Housing 4-6
4.5 Single Family Housing Costs 4-7
4.6 Gross Rent 4-8
4.7 Affordable Housing 4-8
4.8 Future Housing Needs 4-9
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
•
Chapter 5 Employment and Income 5-1
5.1 Fayetteville Establishments and Employment by Industry 5-1
5.2 Fayetteville Occupation 5-2
5.3 Fayetteville Employment Projections 5-3
5.4 MSA Civilian Labor Force 5-3
5.5 MSA Employment by Industry 5-5
5.6 Fayetteville Income 5-6
5.7 Regional Household Income and Poverty 5-7
5.8 MSA Per Capita Personal Income 5-8
5.9 MSA Total Personal Income 5-8
5.10 MSA Earnings by Industry 5-9
Chapter 6 Community Services and Facilities 6-1
6.1 Background 6-1
6.2 Organization of this Section 6-1
6.3 Fire Department 6-2
6.4 Library 6-4
6.5 Parks and Recreation Department 6-4
6.6 Police Department 6-7
6.7 School District 6-8
6.8 Solid Waste Division 6-9
6.9 Street Division 6-12
6.10 Traffic Division 6-13
6.11 Wastewater Treatment Division 6-14
6.12 Water Supply 6-15
6.13 Water Distribution 6-15
Chapter 7 Planning Constraints and Resources 7-1
7.1 Geological History 7-1
7.2 Soils 7-1
7.3 Slope 7-11
7.4 Watershed System 7-12
7.5 Surface Drainage 7-12
7.6 Flooding 7-12
7.7 Groundwater 7-15
7.8 Water Quality 7-15
7.9 Historical Resources 7-15
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
ji
•
•
•
•
Chapter 8 Circulation 8-1
8.1 Access into Fayetteville 8-1
8.2 Traffic Circulation Within Fayetteville 8-2
8.3 Access to the University 8-3
8.4 System Capacity 8-4
8.5 Public Transportation 8-5
8.6 Aviation 8-6
8.7 Rail 8-6
8.8 Motor Freight 8-6
8.9 Trails 8-6
8.10 Land Use as a Transportation Strategy 8-7
8.11 General Conclusions 8-8
PART B. PLANS AND POLICIES
Chapter 9 Future Land Use Plan 9-1
9.1 . Purpose 9-1
9.2 Historical Development Patterns 9-1
9.3 Existing Land Use 9-1
9.4 Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Areas 9-2
9.5 Future Land Use Needs 9-4
9.6 Future Land Use Map 9-9
9.7 Future Land Use Guiding Policies and Implementation Strategies 9-11
9.8 Residential Areas 9-12
9.9 Regional Commercial Areas 9-15
9.10 Community Commercial Areas 9-17
9.11 Historic Downtown Commercial Areas 9-18
9.12 Neighborhood Commercial Areas 9-20
9.13 Professional Office Areas 9-22
9.14 Mixed Use Areas 9-23
9.15 Industrial Areas 9-25
9.16 Environmental Resources 9-27
9.17 Recreation and Open Space 9-29
9.18 National Registered Historic Districts 9-32
9.19 Community Character 9-34
9.20 Circulation 9-35
Chapter 10 Master Street Plan 10-1
10.1 Street Classifications 10-1
10.2 Master Street Plan 10-6
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
Chapter 11 Annexation 11-1
11.1 Purpose 11-1
11.2 History and Trends 11-1
11.3 State Statutes on Annexation 11-4
11.4 Potential Annexation Areas 11-5
11.5 Unincorporated Islands 11-6
11.6 Annexation Policies 11-7
11.6a Boundaries 11-7
11.6b Environmentally Sensitive Areas 11-7
11.6c Emergency and Public Services 11-7
11.6d Infrastructure and Utilities 11-7
11.6e Intergovernmental Relations 11-8
11.6f Administration 11-8
Appendix
A Master Street Plan - Street Classifications A-1
B Historical Annexation Map A-2
C Annexation Candidate Map A-3
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
iv
•
•
•
•
List of Tables
Chapter 3 Population Characteristics
3.1 Historic Population
Fcryetteville, NW Arkansas, Arkansas (1940-2000) 3-2
3.2 Gender
Fayetteville, NW Arkansas, Arkansas (1990 & 2000) 3-4
3.3 Ethnic Origin
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000) 3-5
3.4 Ethnic Origin
NW Arkansas, Arkansas (1990 & 2000) 3-6
3.5 Age
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000) 3-7
3.6 Age Comparisons
Fayetteville, NW Arkansas, Arkansas (2000) 3-9
3.7 Households
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000) 3-11
3.8 Household Comparisons
Fayetteville, NW Arkansas, Arkansas (2000) 3-12
3.9 Household and Family Size
Fayetteville, Washington Co., Benton Co., Arkansas (1990 & 2000) 3-13
3.10 Group Quarters
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000) 3-13
3.11 Future Population
Fayetteville, Planning Area (1990-2020) 3-15
Chapter 4 Housing
4.1 Housing Occupancy and Tenure
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000) 4-2
4.2 Persons Per Occupied Housing Unit
Fayetteville, Bentonville, Lowell, Rogers Springdale (2000) 4-2
4.3 Residential Housing Type
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000) 4-3
4.4 Residential Building Permit Activity
Fayetteville (1990 - 2000) 4-4
4.5 Housing - Year Constructed
Fayetteville 4-6
4.6 Single Family Housing Costs
Fayetteville (2000) 4-7
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
Chapter 5 Employment and Income
5.1 Occupation
Fayetteville (1990) 5-2
5.2 Employment Projections
Fayetteville (1995 & 2020) 5-3
5.3 Civilian Labor Force
MSA, Washington Co., Benton Co. (1990 & 2000) 5-4
5.4 Employment by Industry
MSA (1990, 1995 & 2000) 5-4
5.5 Employment by Industry
MSA, Arkansas, Nation (1990, 1995 & 2000) 5-5
5.6 Income
Fayetteville (1990) ' 5-6
5.7 Household Income & Poverty
Washington Co., Benton Co., Arkansas (1997 Model -based Estimates) 5-7
5.8 Per Capita Personal Income (PCPI)
MSA, Washington Co., Benton Co. (1989 & 1999) 5-8
5.9 Total Personal Income (TPI)
MSA, Washington Co., Benton Co. (1989 & 1999) 5-9
Chapter 6 Community Services and Facilities
6.1 Fire Department Resources
Fayetteville (2001) 6-2
6.2 Park Land
Fayetteville (2001) 6-5
6.3 Park Facilities
Fayetteville (2001) 6-6
6.4 Existing and Needed Park Land
Fayetteville Park Districts (2001) 6-6
6.5 Fayetteville Public Schools
(Fall 2001) 6-8
6.6 Street Division Equipment
Fayetteville (2001) 6-12
6.7 Water Use Projections
Fayetteville (1995 - 2015) 6-16
6.8 Water Storage Projections
Fayetteville (1995-2015) 6-16
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
vi
•
•
•
•
• Chapter 9 Future Land Use Plan
9.1 Developed Area - Incorporated Area
Fayetteville (1995) 9-2
9.2 Future Land Use Map Area Calculations (Acres)
Fayetteville (1995) 9-4
9.3 Employment Densities
Fayetteville (1995) 9-5
9.4 Industrial and Commercial Land Requirements
To Accommodate Growth by 2020 9-5
9.5 South Industrial Park
Fayetteville (2001) 9-6
9.6 Residential Land and Housing Needs
Fayetteville (2020) 9-7
9.7 Projected Residential Housing Mix
Fayetteville (2020) 9-8
9.8 Future Land Use Map Area Calculations
Fayetteville City Limits (1995 & 2020) 9-10
Chapter 11 A anexaticin
11.1 Annexation History
Fayetteville (1870-2001) 11-1
11.2 Six Largest Annexations
Fayetteville (1870-2001) 11-3
11.3 Population vs. Land Area
Fayetteville (1840-2000) 11-4
11.4 Annexation Candidates - Unincorporated Islands
Fayetteville (2001) 11-6
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
vii
Chapter 2
2.1
Chapter 3
List of Figures
•
Community Context
Planning Area 2-2
Population Characteristics
3.1 Historic Population Trends
Fayetteville, NW Arkansas (1940-2000) 3-2
3.2 Age
Fayetteville (2000) 3-8
3-10
3.3 Median Age
(2000)
3.4 Population Projections
Fayetteville (1990-2020) 3-15
Chapter 4
4.1
4.2
Housing
Residential Building Permit Activity
Fayetteville (1990-2000) 4-5
Housing Types Constructed
Fayetteville (1990-2000) 4-5
4.3 Age of Housing
Fayetteville (2000) 4-6
Chapter 7
Planning Constraints and Resources
7.1 Geological Fault Location 7-2
7.2 Soils Location 74
7.3 Soil Based Engineering Restrictions 7-5
7.4 Slope Analysis 7-14
Chapter 9
Future Land Use Plan
9.1 Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Areas 9-3
Chapter 11
Annexation
Land Areas and Population
Fayetteville (1940-2000) 11-3
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
viii
•
•
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
1 SETTING AND ORGANIZATION
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 1995, 2001
The Fayetteville General Plan 2020 establishes long range policies and implementation strategies
to manage and guide future growth and development for the penod 1995 through 2020. The
General Plan establishes a set of policies and strategies to be used by the City Council, Planning
Commission, residents, land developers, and business people when changes in land use are
proposed, when new developments are being planned, or when changes to existing development
regulations are being considered.
1.1 History of Plan Making by the
City of Fayetteville Planning Commission
The following is a chronology of long range planning efforts by the City of Fayetteville Planning
• Commission to update the 1970 General Land Use Plan, the 2010 Plan and the 2020 Plan
October, 1969 1970-1990 General Land Use Plan adopted.
1987-1995
June 1 & 15, 1987 Special Planning Commission meetings to work on revising and updating
the 1970 General Plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the residential
goals of the 1970 General Plan.
November 9, 1987 Hart -Freeland -Roberts, a planning consultant firm, was hired by the City
to revise and update the General Plan. Mr. Al Raby was the lead consultant
in the firm handling the Fayetteville General Plan.
August 9, 1988 A Planning Commission Policies and Issues Workshop was held and a
report from Mr. Al Raby was given.
March 8, 1989 A Special Planning Commission meeting was held to discuss the General
Plan. Mr. Al Raby and Mr. Eric Kelly, consultants, made a presentation to
the Commission.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
1-1
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
April 8, 1991
May 1, 1991
Planning staff advised the Planning Commission on "The Fayetteville
Plan." A steering committee was set up and an advertising and media
campaign was developed.
Planning staff held a "Goal Summit" at Mt. Sequoya.h. Staff informed the
Commission that eight neighborhood meetings would be held to gain input
into "The Fayetteville Vision" document and that a survey was being
mailed to residents of the city.
May 13, 1991 Planning staff updated the Commission on "The Fayetteville Vision."
May 28, 1991
June 10, 1991
June 24, 1991
July 9, 1991
September 9, 1991
October 14, 1991
December 3, 1991
Planning staff informed the commission the neighborhood meetmgs and
survey were completed and approximately 650 to 750 people participated
in the process.
.A Commissioner reported to the Planning Commission that the Steering
Committee was working on formulating goals discussed at the
neighborhood meetings.
Planning staff presented to the Commission the Fayetteville Vision Final
Goal materials.
A special meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Directors and Planning
Commission was held and planning staff presented the Vision Project and
explained that it was utilized as a means to incorporate public input into
the General Planning Process.
Planning staff informed the commission that an in-house report was being
prepared which would include the cost of each item recommended in the
Vision Plan, whether it would replace existing programs, if additional staff
would be necessary and City Department Heads' recommendations.
A Commissioner reported to the Commission that the City Manager
informed him that all of the preliminary work on the Vision Project had
been completed and a rough draft was being reviewed.
Special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on the
Vision Report. City staff provided an estimate of $19,000,000 was
required to implement the Plan. The Commission directed the staff to send
the Vision Project back to the Steering Committee for their comments and
recommendations.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
1-2
•
•
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS
• February 10, 1992
•
•
April 13, 1992
June 8, 1992
August 24, 1992
August 19, 1993
October 11, 1993
October 25, 1993
November, 1993 -
January 1995
November 16, 1993
January, 1993
February 7, 1995
Planning staff reported to the Commission that comments from the last
meeting were being compiled and admmistration was working on an
overall goal.
The Planning Commission passed a resolution directing planning staff to
work on the land use plan. Staff also updated the Conunission on the
Vision Project by looking at associate costs and necessary items to bring
that portion of the plan to a close.
The Commission tables any action on the Vision Project because the staff
was not in attendance at the meeting.
The Commission discussed the Vision Project and the majority of the
Commissioners stated the Vision process was not intended to develop
projects. The Planning Commission forwarded the report to the Board of
Directors "as an informational item only", to be considered and adopted at
their discretion and when funds were available.
Planning staff presented the first draft of the land use plan to the Planning
Commission.
Planning Commission rejected the Land Use Plan as presented.
The Commission forwarded the plan to the City Council with the removal
of the transportation element.
Numerous work sessions and public meettngs (25 total) were held
conceming the Master Street Plan (Transportation Element).
The City Council passed Resolution No. 120-93 adopting General Plan
2010.
Work began on developing ordinances as part of the Unified Development
Code. Nine amendments were made to the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances as part of the Unified Development Code process.
The City Council passed Resolution No. 13-95 directing the Planning
Commission and planning staff to present a revised comprehensive land
use plan by August 1, 1995. Work stopped on the unified development
code.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
1-3
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
March, 1995 Planning Commission recommended the Master Street Plan to the City
Council.
April, 1995 The City Council passed the Master Street Plan.
June 15, 1995 Planning staff held a listening session on Chapter 6- Guiding Policies and
Implementation Strategies.
June 29, 1995
Planning staff held a public hearing on Chapter 5 - Community Services
and facilities which provided detailed information on infrastructure plans,
needs and projects.
July 20, 1995 Planning staff held a public hearing on Chapter 4 - Future Land Use Map
and Land Use Element.
July 31, 1995
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Draft
Comprehensive Land Use Plan and decided that no action should be taken
until the notification through the water bills was completed.
August 1, 1995 The City Council agreed to wait until the Planning Commission acted on
the proposed comprehensive land use plan.
October 5, 1995 The Planning Commission held a special work session on the proposed
land use plan.
October 9, 1995 The Planning Commission voted on the proposed changes that were
discussed at the Oct 5, 1995 meeting and directed staff to revised the plan
with the approved changes.
November 13, 1995 The Planning Commission adopted the plan and forwarded it to the City
Council.
December 5, 1995 Staff presented the land use plan to the City Council. Public comment was
taken on the proposed plan.
December 19, 1995 The City Council passed Resolution No. 147-95 adopting General Plan
2020.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
1-4
•
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
June 8, 2000
June 29, 2000
July 13, 2000
July 27, 2000
August 24, 2000
October 9, 2000
October 23, 2000
December 7, 2000
December 19, 2000
000-2001
First General Plan 2020 Subcommittee and public heanng was held to
revise General Plan 2020 as required by Resolution No 147-95 Items
discussed at this meeting included Planning Area Boundary Map and
Master Street Plan revisions.
General Plan 2020 Subcommittee and public hearing. Items discussed
included Master Street Plan and Future Land Use Plan revisions.
General Plan 2020 Subcommittee and public hearing. Items discussed
included Master Street Plan, Future Land Use Plan and General Plan 2020
text revisions.
General Plan 2020 Subcommittee and public hearing. Items discussed
included Future Land Use Plan and General Plan 2020 text revisions.
General Plan 2020 Subcommittee and public hearing. Item discussed
included all four components of General Plan 2020: Future Land Use Plan,
General Plan 2020 text, Planning Area Boundary Map, and Master Street
Plan. The subcommittee met and recommended revisions to all four
components and forwarded the plan to the full Planning Commission.
Planning Commission public hearing.
Planning Commission public hearing and adoption of the 2000 Revision.
John City CounciVPlanning Commission public hearing.
City Council public hearing and adoption of the 2000 Revision with
Resolution 170-00 A -C.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
1-5
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
1.2 The Planning Process -
Need For Revision and Update of the 2020 General Plan
The City of Fayetteville adopted the 2010 Plan in November of 1993. On February 7, 1995, the
City Council passed resolution 13-95 directing the Planning Commission and staff to propose a
comprehensive land use plan to the City Council by August 1, 1995. The resolution stated that a
"new" comprehensive land use plan was needed based on the following four premises.
• "The City of Fayetteville is expenencing unprecedented growth; and
• Pressures for growth of Fayetteville have resulted in the rezoning of agricultural
land for development without regard to the relationship among such areas and the
impact on required infrastructure; and
• Land zoned for residential growth, commercial, and industrial development,
sufficient to satisfy the development needs of the City for 1995, already exist; and
• The adoption of a comprehensive land use plan, as specified by A.0 A. §14-56-
401 et seq and in accordance with the principles of the 2010 General Plan, is
needed for the orderly development of the City in the future."
On December 19, 1995, the City Council passed resolution 147-95 adopting the General Plan
2020 as the document to establish general policies for guiding growth and development of
Fayetteville. The resolution provided for amendments to the General Plan 2020 at any time by a
majority vote and determined that major revisions of the General Plan be scheduled every five
years.
1.3 Principles of The General Plan
The policies and strategies found within this document were based upon six principles of General
Plan 2010, Chapter 3 "Vision". These six broad policy statements were used as a guide to meet
Resolution No. 13-95 which required that this plan be based upon the principals of General Plan
2010 and are summarized below:
• Creating a sense of place and connectivity within neighborhoods and community.
• Containing and strengthening the emergence of multiple activity centers.
• Enhancing and revitalizing older urban areas.
• Relating the natural and built environments through community design.
• Increasing transportation efficiency.
• Increasing affordable housing.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
1-6
•
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• 1.4 Nature and Scope of the General Plan
The powers and duties of the Planning Commission under A.C.A. §14 56412 include but are not
limited to the preparation of a master street plan, land use plan, and community facilities plan.
Furthermore, A.C.A. § 14-56-413 states that a land use plan may include, but is not limited to:
• The reservation of open spaces;
• The preservation of natural and historical features, sites and monuments;
• The existing uses to be retained without change;
• The existing uses proposed for change; and
• The areas proposed for new development.
• The plan may include areas proposed for redevelopment, rehabilitation, renewal
and similar programs.
• Resolution No. 13-95 passed by the Council set out in specific terms the scope of what was to be
considered in the new comprehensive land use plan.
• A description of the proposed year 2020 boundaries and service provision areas of
the City.
• The projected growth in population, industry, and commerce to be accommodated
• within these boundaries by the year 2020.
•
• The land areas required to accommodate this growth, based on the density
considerations outlined in the 2010 plan.
• An inventory of all undeveloped and underdeveloped land within the area.
• A plan for the accommodation of necessary growth in these undeveloped and
underdeveloped areas, including the reservation of open space for parks,
recreation and the preservation of the character of the city, at all times maximizing
the utilization of existing infrastructure for the purpose of efficiency and economy
of development and minimizing development where new infrastructure would be
required, or where existing infrastructure would be over taxed. The plan shall
specify development densities appropriate to different areas of the city, in
accordance with sound principals of urban design, and shall provide for
transportation alternatives to automobiles, including pedestrian and bicycle
facilities.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
1-7
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
General Plan 2020 contains policy statements and implementation measures for each proposed
land use category designated on the future land use map. Many of the implementation strategies
have explanations and examples, shown in bold italic text, of how each strategy is currently
being implemented or could be implemented in order to accomplish the stated policies of the
land use plan. This document also contains many parts of the General Plan 2010 which were
identified by the author of the 2010 plan, Mr. Alfred N. Raby.
General Plan 2020 contains information on future land needs based on estimated population and
employment growth and provides summarized information on infrastructure conditions and
needs.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
1-8
•
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS ••
COMMUNITY CONTEXT
Alfred I•1 Raby, A1CP, Gana& Plan 2010
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 2091
2.1 Location
Fayetteville is an attractive and prospering city of 58,047 people (Source: 2000 Census). Located
in Northwest Arkansas, the city is the economic, political and cultural center of a diverse and
growing region. The region, consisting of Washington and Benton counties, contains 311,157
people representing over 13 percent of the state's population (Source: 2000 Census).
Fayetteville occupies the westem edge of the Boston Mountains, an elevated feature of the
greater Ozark Plateau extending further west and north. It is this modest mountainous terrain that
shapes the more linear north -south development pattern and intense concentration of land uses
along the valley floor occupied by Fayetteville and Interstate 540.
The nearby White River provided water for settlers, a source which guided growth along the
western side of the White River drainage basin prior to 1970. The location of the John Paul
Hammersclunidt Expressway to the west and north of the city extended more recent growth into
the Illinois River drainage basin. The completion of Interstate 540 and Highway 412 provides
even greater attraction of growth to the west.
The city presently occupies some 45.2 square miles (Source: Fayetteville IT Department, July
2001). This is a 29 percent increase in land area from the city's 35 square miles in 1968, and a
165 percent increase from the 17 square miles of incorporated area before 1960.
Fayetteville is home to the main campus of the University of Arkansas and its 15,795 students
(Source: U of A, 2001). The University contributes significantly to the economic and cultural
growth of the area.
As the largest city in Northwest Arkansas, Fayetteville serves as the gateway to the Ozark
Mountains The growing tourism industry is one of the factors associated with the region's rapid
economic development.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
2-1
2.2 Planning Area
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
In August 2001, the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission coordinated with the
cities of Fayetteville, Greenland, Johnson and Farmington to revise the planning area boundaries
for each jurisdiction. Figure 2.1 is the planning area as revised in 2002.
The Planning Area is comprised of the city corporate limits and the extraterritorial jurisdiction,
which extends up to 2.5 miles from the corporate limits. The total planning area is approximately
84.9 square miles, 45.08 square miles in the Fayetteville city limits and 39.82 square miles in the
planning area outside the city limits. Roughly two-thirds of the extraterritorial jurisdiction is
located on the east side of Fayetteville, with the remaining one-third on the west. The City of
Fayetteville's expansion within the Planning Area is restricted by the immediate location of the
cities of Springdale and Johnson to the north and Greenland to the south.
The role the city plays in administering and serving these two areas varies. Within the corporate
limits, the City may exercise a full range of development controls and administrative functions.
Within the extraterritorial jurisdiction, the City exercises joint subdivision authority with
Washington County.
Fe
FIGURE 2.1
PLANNING AREA
Planning Area
City Limits
Major Road
•
CI
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
2-2
I.
Is
IS
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
2.3 Fayetteville Growth Transitions
Since its establishment in the early 1800's, Fayetteville has experienced four distinguishable
transitions in growth and development, each centering on major economic change. A fifth
transition is emerging as a result of the more diverse economic expansion of the region.
EARLY SETTLERS. The original community of Washington, as Fayetteville was first called,
was established in 1828. The name was changed a year later due to confusion with a city named
Washington in southern Arkansas. Early settlers were involved in the relocation of the Cherokee
Nation to the southwest. Fayetteville, being near the terminal point of the journey, became the
new home for the escort party.
The McGarrah family was among Fayetteville's first settlers and laid claim to a large tract of land
at the comer of Spring and Willow Streets. McGarrah's property included the southern part of
what is now designated as the Washington -Willow Historic District, north to Maple Street.
In 1834, Congress authorized Washington County to sell 160 acres to underwrite the building of
a proper courthouse. This 160 acres became know as the original town of Fayetteville. The city
grew over the next three and half decades and in 1870 approximately 1,200 acres were
incorporated as the City of Fayetteville.
Although the early settlement period appeared to be blessed with prosperity, the community
suffered through a particularly disastrous civil war experience. Much of the original Fayetteville
community was destroyed by fire during the Battle of Fayetteville on April 18, 1863.
RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD. Following the Civil War, in 1869, the McGarrah farm was
bought by the Mason family, subdivided and the lots sold, referred to as the Masonic Addition. In
the 1870's several homes were constructed on the large lots of the subdivision. Portions of the
land were subdivided again and built on in the 1880's and thereafter.
The Masonic Addition represented Fayetteville's first reconstruction period following the Civil
War. The initial filling in of antebellum homes began in this addition and was significant because
of the many students, lawyers, administrators and faculty of the University who would make their
homes here. In 1871, Fayetteville was chosen as the site of the land-grant Arkansas Industrial
University. A north -south railroad was constructed through town in 1882, confirming the growth
of Fayetteville's initial phase.
In the 1890's, Fayetteville established itself as a banking and distribution center and, ultimately,
the hub of prosperous tourist, lumber and fruit -processing industries. It was during this period of
prosperous growth that two of Fayetteville's current Historic Districts, Mt. Nord and
Washington -Willow, became the area of more prestigious residences.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
2-3
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
These districts attracted bankers, lawyers, lumber merchants, furniture manufacturers, university
professors, railroad men and wholesale grocers. The homes were large and many had servants. At
the turn of the century, many households rented rooms to tourists and university students.
Beginning in the 1890's, many of the large lots were again subdivided and the process of infill
with smaller homes and student housing initiated.
POST-WAR INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION. Fayetteville's third transition in growth and
development followed the second World War. Approximately 60 percent of Fayetteville's
residential stock was built following the depression years, with the most of it coming after World
War II when building materials were plentiful and inexpensive. At this time, there were few code
regulations guiding the growth and development of the city. Rapid growth during this period
resulted in greater demands for housing, community services, space for University of Arkansas
expansion and space for parking. During this same period (1945-1958), Fayetteville experienced
a rapid growth in commercial uses. New business enterprises were forced to locate along existing
traffic arteries due to the lack of available space in the central business district. Some chose to
locate on vacant lots between residential areas. Although these businesses were able to purchase
land at more reasonable rates and to occupy larger sites, their proximity to downtown and related
business enterprises was markedly diminished.
Fayetteville's first industries continued to expand during this period. It was during this phase of
growth that a shift from railroad service to truck service was realized. Wholesalers, bakeries,
hatcheries, repair services and other traditional commercial enterprises, once located along the
railroad but needing space and access to truck routes, were forced to scatter to larger sites.
The transition in industry from non -durable goods to durable goods resulted in a similar need for
larger sites and highway frontage versus railroad siding. Thus industries began scattering
throughout the southwest quarter of the city.
UNIVERSITY EXPANSION. The fourth major transition in growth and expansion of
Fayetteville occurred between 1960 and 1970 and paralleled the expansion experienced by the
University of Arkansas. From 1960 to 1965, the University doubled in enrollment, creating an
unanticipated demand for dormitories, apartments and small houses near the campus. The initial
market reaction to this demand resulted in numerous conversions of older homes and garages
near campus into boarding houses and apartments.
When the large-scale multi -family housing boom occurred, much of it located within existing
residential areas that were near the University. The growth that accompanied the University's
expansion created an even greater demand for commercial services. New commercial
establishments, in response to the increased demand, began locating outside the traditional
center. Due to the sloping topography on either side, new establishments located in narrow bands
along existing major streets, creating the first strip commercial.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
2-4
0
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• NEW ERA. Between 1970 and 1990, Fayetteville had been growing at a fairly steady rate of 1.6
to 1.9 percent per year. Between 1990 and 2000, Fayetteville grew at an annual compound rate of
3.2 percent. Residential, commercial and industrial uses have all experienced significant
increases. Subdivision and large-scale development activity indicate that the area is entering a
new era of growth, one based on expansion of the region as a whole. Meanwhile, the University
of Arkansas continues to have a major impact on attracting residents, students and professionals
to the city. The effect on the local economy derived from the University's presence has a
supporting and stabilizing effect on the community -at -large. The University has also attracted
specialized community activities that enable Fayetteville to remain the cultural center of the
region. The most notable of these is the Walton Arts Center which has given new emphasis to
the link between the University and downtown and between the region and downtown in general.
Recently, Fayetteville has experienced a more active role on both the public and private level in
revitalizing and preserving the character of its past. This effort brings the current development
phase full circle as planning for the future builds upon the community's rich heritage. Both new
and old play a vital role in the community's success.
2.4 Regional Growth Transitions
• Historically, the smaller communities within Washington County and Northwest Arkansas have
served as semi -autonomous incorporations, providing the basic needs of the mostly residential
occupants. Fayetteville, with 37 percent of the County's population, plus the location of the
University of Arkansas, has served as the governmental, economic, and cultural center of the
area.
FAYETTEVILLE-SPRINGDALE TRANSITION. The traditional relationship of urban center
and surrounding smaller communities began a transition that became somewhat noticeable by
1970 and dramatically evident by 1980. It was first marked by the emergence of Springdale as a
major employment center with 3,700 new jobs added between 1970 and 1980, compared to 4,600
for the much larger Fayetteville. The figures suggest the emergence of a twin -cities economy
between Fayetteville and Springdale.
Population during the same period showed a similar pattern: Springdale, with an increase of
5,994, rose from 18 to 23 percent of the County total, while Fayetteville's increase of 5,430
dropped it from 36 to 35 percent of the total. The U.S. Bureau of the Census recognized this new
status when it identified the two cities as the Fayetteville -Springdale Metropolitan Statistical
Area in 1980.
NORTHWEST ARKANSAS REGION TRANSITION. The second metamorphosis of the
area started in the 1990's with the regionalization of Northwest Arkansas, consisting
predominantly of Washington and Benton counties. The entire region is becoming a more
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
2-5
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
diversified and integrated economic unit through the expansion of tourism, Wal-Mart and related
services, and the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport. Between 1990 and 2000, Washington
County's population increased by 44,306, or 39.1 percent and Benton County's increased by
55,907, or 57.3 percent. In 1990, the U.S. Bureau of the Census once again recognized the
significant growth in Fayetteville and surrounding areas by changing the metropolitan statistical
area name to Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA.
This newly gained regional status means that all of the cities of the region are now both
competitors and partners in attracting significant economic growth. Having achieved the
threshold level of a major economic center due to their joint size and resources, each are now
catalysts for one another's development. Whereas larger industries may have looked at labor
force and other production resources of individual cities as limited previously, the now combined
resources are attracting national attention. This new attraction is evidenced by the major growth
of Tyson, Pinnacle Foods, and the emergence of a national trucking center in the region.
The increasing importance of the region is also attested by the construction of two new
expressways. Interstate 540 links the region north and south, while U.S. 412 will provide
east -west access. These highways will vastly improve the area's transportation system through
the linking of Fayetteville, Springdale and Bentonville, while opening all of Northwest Arkansas
to new national markets and other economic opportunities.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
2-6
•
•
C
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•
3 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
Key Findings:
• Fayetteville's population in 2000 was 58,047, an increase of 37.9 percent from 1990.
• The Northwest Arkansas region (Washington and Benton counties) increased in population by
47.5 percent between 1990 and 2000.
• Fayetteville, with a median age of 26.9, has a slightly younger population than the region, 30.8 in
Washington County and 35.3 in Benton County.
• Slightly more males than females live in Fayetteville.
• Caucasians represent the largest portion of the population, but have decreased as a percent of
population since 1990.
•- Between 1990 and 2000, the number of African Americans doubled and the number of Hispanics
quadrupled.
• The 2000 Census population for Fayetteville of 58,047 surpassed the projected population of
56,429 by 1,618 persons.
• 3.1 Population Trends
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
HISTORIC TREND. Viewed on a decennial basis, Fayetteville's 60 -year population growth
has been sporadic, affected in part by major annexation in the 1960s and significant growth in
Northwest Arkansas between 1980 and 2000. As Table 3.1 shows, the greatest period of growth
was recorded between 1940 and 1950 with a percent increase of 107.2 percent. Between 1950
and 1960, the growth rate declined to 19.1 percent. Between 1960 and 1970, the growth rate
experienced another surge at 51.6 percent. Between 1970 and 1990, the growth rate remained
relatively steady, varying between 15 percent and 19 percent.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-1
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
FIGURE 3.1
HISTORIC POPULATION TRENDS
Fayetteville and NW Arkansas (1940-2000)
Fayetteville
♦ NW Arkansas (Washington & Benton Co.)
•
350
300
o
v
250
200
150
100
50
0
1900
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Source: Fayetteville General Plan 2020, December 1995; U.S. Census, Table DP -l. Profile
of General Demographic Characteristics:2000.
TABLE 3.1
HISTORIC POPULATION
Fayetteville, NW Arkansas. Arkansas (1940 - 2000)
Fayetteville
NW Arkansas
(Washington & Benton Co.)
Arkansas
Year
Population
Percent
Change
Population
Percent
Change
Population
Percent
Change
1940
8,212
-
41,114
-
1,949,387
-
1950
17,017
107.2%
49,979
21.6%
1,909,511
-2.0%
1960
20,274
19.1%
55,797
11.6%
1,786,272
-6.5%
1970
30,729
51.6%
77,370
38.7%
1,923,322
7.7%
1980
36,608
19.1%
100,494
29.9%
2,286,436
18.9%
1990
42,247
15.4%
210,908
109.9%
2,350,725
2.8%
2000
58,047
37.4%
311,121
47.5%
2,673,400
13.7%
Source: Fayetteville General Plan 2020, December 1995; U.S. Census, Table DP -1. Profile of General.
Demographic Characteristics:2000.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-2
•
0
C J
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• CURRENT POPULATION. The 2000 Census indicates Fayetteville has a total population of
58,047, an increase of 37.9 percent from 1990. Almost 27 percent of the 2000 population can be
attributed to the presence of the University of Arkansas, which had a 2000 enrollment of 15,396
students. The significant increase is consistent with the growth of Northwest Arkansas
(Washington and Benton Counties), which experienced an increase of 47.5. percent during the
same period. Both of the increases are considerably higher than the increase in the population for
the state of Arkansas, which grew by 13.7 percent. Due to growth in the surrounding area, the
City is decreasing its share of the Northwest Arkansas region's population. Fayetteville's share of
the region's population was 39 percent in 1970 and dropped to 18 percent in 2000.
A special census taken in 1996 indicated Fayetteville had a population of 52,976. This data
suggests that a significant portion of the growth in the 1990's occurred prior to 1996. The
population increased 25 percent between 1990 and 1996, and 10 percent between 1996 and 2000.
PLANNING AREA. The Planning Area had a 1995 population estimated at 8,500. The
Planning Area has moderately high growth since more than half of the population has located in
the area since 1980. Prior to 1980, the growth area's population was relatively stable. Staff is in
the process of estimating the population for the Planning Area for 2000.
•
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-3
C
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
I
TABLE 3.2
GENDER
Fayetteville, NW Arkansas, Arkansas (1990 & 2000)
Gender
Fayetteville
NW Arkansas
(Washington and Benton Co.)
Arkansas
Population
Percent
Population
Percent
Population
Percent
1990
1990
1990
Male
21,029
50.0
103,591
49.1
1,133,076
48.2
Female
21,070
50.0
107,317
50.9
1,217,649.
51.8
2000
2000
2000
Male
29,458
.50.7
154,697
49.7
1,304693
48.8
Female
28,589
49.3
156,424
50.3
1,368,707
51.2
Source: Fayetteville General Plan 2020, December 1995; U.S. Census, STF-IA Census of Population and
Housing:1990, Table DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:2000
3.2 Gender
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
Census data suggests an increasing number of men in Fayetteville and the NW Arkansas region.
In 1990, an almost equal number of persons of each gender lived in Fayetteville. As of 2000, the
number of males surpassed that of females with males representing 50.7 percent of the city's
population, as shown in Table 3.2. In comparison, NW Arkansas data indicates fewer males than
females, with 49.7 percent male. State data suggests an even lower percentage of males with 48.8
percent. However, the percentage of males has increased for NW Arkansas and the State since
1990, consistent with the increase of males in Fayetteville.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
3-4
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•
TABLE 3.3
ETHNIC ORIGIN
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000)
Population Percent of Total Population
Ethnic Origin 1990 2000 1990 2000
Caucasian 39,206 50,212 93.1 86.5
African -American 1,580 2,969 3.8 5.1
American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut 481 730 1.1 1.3
Asian or Pacific Islands 657 1,574 1.6 2.7
Other Ethnic Group 175 1,158 0.4 2.0
Two or More n/a 1,404 n/a 2.4
Hispanic Origin (of any rou • 603 2,821 1.4 4.9
• Hispanics may consist of one or more of the above groups.
Source: Fayetteville General Plan 2020, December 1995; Us. Census, STF-I A Census of Population and
Housing: 1990; U.S. Census, Table DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000.
3.3 Ethnic Origin
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
FAYETTEVILLE ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS. Fayetteville is experiencing an increase
in ethnic diversity. As of 2000, Caucasians continue to represent the largest ethnic group with
86.5 percent of the total population. However, this data suggests a significant decline from 1990,
when Caucasians represented 93.1 percent of the total population.
The decrease in Caucasian percent of population is an effect of the significant increases the
African American and Hispanic populations. The number of African Americans almost doubled
between 1990 and 2000, with a large portion of the increases occurring prior to 1996. African
Americans are the second largest group representing 5.1 percent of the total population, an
increase from 3.8 percent in 1990. People of Hispanic Origin, of any ethnic group, are the third
largest group, representing 4.9 percent of the total population. The number of Hispanics more
than quadrupled between 1990 and 2000.
Asian or Pacific Islanders represent the fourth largest group, with 2.7 percent of the population.
Two percent of the population are from other ethnic origins and approximately 2.4 percent of the
population are of two or more ethnic origins.
REGIONAL TRENDS. An increase in ethnic diversity is a trend throughout Northwest
Arkansas. The Caucasian percent of population decreased between 1990 and 2000 from 96.6 to
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-5
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 3.4
ETHNIC ORIGIN
NW Arkansas and Arkansas (1990 & 2000)
Percent of Total Population
NW Arkansas
(Washington and Benton Co.)
1990 2000
96.6 89.4
.09 1.3
1.4 1.4
.01 1.6
.01 4.2
n/a 1.9
Arkansas
1990 2000
82.7 80.0
15.9 15.7
0.5 .7
0.5 .9
.003 1.5
n/a 1.3
Ethnic Origin
Caucasian
African -American
American Indian, Eskimo or Aleut
Asian or Pacific Islands
Other Ethnic Group
Two or More
Hispanic Origin (of any group)*
1.4
8.4
0.8
3.2
* Hispanics may consist of one or more of the above groups.
Source: U.S. Census, STF-lA Census of Population and Housing:1990; U.S. Census, Table DP -1
Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
89.4. Additionally, Northwest Arkansas is experiencing a significant increase in Hispanic
population, where the percent of population jumped from 1.4 in 1990 to 8.4 in 2000. While
Fayetteville and Northwest Arkansas are experiencing an increase of African Americans as a
percent of total population, the trend has been steady for the State, where African Americans
represent 15.7 percent of the total population, a slight decrease from 15.9 percent in 1990.
3.4 Age
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
FAYETTEVILLE AGE CHARACTERISTICS. Fayetteville has a relatively young
population. The largest percent of the population, at 36.1 percent, continues to be between the
ages of 20 and 34 years. In 1990, the largest percent of the population, at 18.4 percent, was
between the ages 25 to 34 years and the second was 20 to 24 years at 18.2 percent. In 2000, the
trend reversed with the largest percent of population in the 20 to 24 age group. Persons between
age 20 to 24 years represent 18.8 percent of the total population. This group consists of 10,912
people, an increase of almost 42 percent since 1990. Persons between the ages of 25 and 34
years represent 17.3 percent of the total population. This group experienced a 30 percent increase
in population between 1990 and 2000.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-6
I.1
•
I0
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 33
AGE
Favetteville (1990 & 20001
Population
1990 2000
Under S years 2,757 3,792
Percent Change
5 to 9 years
2,434
3,076
10 to 14 years
2,192
2,881
15 to 19 years
4,225
5,844
20 to 24 years
7,698
10,912
25 to 34 years
7,791
10,049
35 to 44 years
5,282
7,305
45 to 54 years
3,344
6,066
55 to 59 years
1,246
1,971
60 to 64 years
1,093
1,293
65 to 74 years
2,128
2,356
75 years and over
1,905
2,682
Source: U.S Census, STF-IA Census of Population and
Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
37.5
rXM
31.4
38.3
41.7
28.9
Percent of Total
Population
1990 2000
6.6 6.5
5.8 5.3
5.2 5.0
10.0 10.1
18.3 18.8
18.5 17.3
12.6 12.6
7.9 10.5
58.2 2.9 3.1
18.3 2.6 2.2
10.7 5.1 4.1
40.8 4.5 4.6
Housinz:1990, U.S. Census, Table
All of the age groups increased in population between 1990 and 2000. The most significant
population increase was persons between 45 and 54 years. This group experienced an 81.4
percent increase in population and in 2O00 represents 10.5 percent of the total population The
second largest increase was persons between 55 and 59 years, with a 58.2 percent increase.
The smallest increase was persons between 65 and 74 years, with a 10.7 percent increase.
CHILDREN. Children represent a relatively small percent of the population. Further, persons
under the age of 15 have decreased slightly as a percent of total population. In 1990, children
under five years represented 6.6 percent of the population. This dropped slightly in 2000, with
this age group representing 6.5 percent of the population. Children between the ages of five and
14 represent 10.3 percent of the population, a decrease from 11 percent in 1990.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-7
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
FIGURE 3.2
AGE
Fayetteville (2000)
Under 5 years -
5 to 9 years
10 to 14 years
15to19years
20 to 24 years
rn 25 to 34 years
35to44years
45 to 54 years
65 to 59 yearn
60 to 64 years
66 to 74 years
76 years and Over
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Thousands
Source: U.S. Census, Table DP -l. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics:2000.
REGIONAL TRENDS. The presence of the University of Arkansas becomes more evident
when comparing Fayetteville age data with that of Northwest Arkansas and Arkansas. In
Fayetteville, the 2000 percent of population for ages 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years is
significantly higher than that of the region or the state. Persons age 15 to 19 years represent 10.1
percent of the population in Fayetteville, 7.6 percent in Northwest Arkansas and 7.2 percent in
the state. Similarly, persons age 20 to 24 years represent 18.8 percent of the population in
Fayetteville, 8.6 percent in Northwest Arkansas and 6.8 percent in Arkansas.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-8
0
C1
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• TABLE 3.6
AGE COMPARISONS
Fayetteville, NW Arkansas and Arkansas (2000)
Ethnic
Origin
2000 Percent of Population
Fayetteville
NW Arkansas
Arkansas
Under 5 years
6.5
7.5
6.8
5to9 ears
5.3
7.1
7.0
10 to 14 years
5.0
7.0
7.2
15 to 19 ears
10.1
7.6
7.4
20 to 24 years
18.8
8.6
6.8
25 to 34 years
17.3
15.0
132
35 to 44 years
12.6
14.8
14.9
45 to 54 ears
10.5
11.9
13.1
55 to 59 years
3.1
4.6
5.2
60 to 64 ears
2.2
3.8
4.4
65 to 74 ears
4.1
6.6
7.4
75 years and over
46
Source: U.S. Census, Table DP -l. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics: IUUU
Fayetteville's children represent a smaller percent of the population than the region and state. In
Fayetteville, children under age 9 represent 11.9 percent of the population, while in Northwest
Arkansas, those children represent 14.6 percent of the population. In Arkansas, children under
age 9 represent 13.8 percent of the total population.
Fayetteville also has a smaller share of persons over age 65 than the state or region. In
Fayetteville, persons over age 65 represent 8.7 percent of the population, while those persons
represent 12 percent in Northwest Arkansas and 13.9 percent in Arkansas.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-9
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•
Source: U.S. Census, Table DP -l. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics:2000.
MEDIAN AGE. Median age is an indicator of the vitality of a population. It represents the
"middle", not the average, age of the population; half of the population is older than the median
age and half is younger than the median age.
As Figure 3.3 indicates, Fayetteville has a young population. Fayetteville's median age is 26.9,
significantly younger than Washington County, with a median age of 30.8 years, and even •
younger than the state, with a median age of 36 years.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
3-10
I
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• TABLE 3.7
HOUSEHOLDS
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000)
Household Type
Households
Percent of Total Households
1990
2000
1990
2000
Married couple family
7,481
8,971
44.3
37.7
Female -headed family, no
husband present
1,493
2,278
8.8
9.6
All other family
441
877
2.6
3.7
Family Total
9,415
12,126
55.7
50.9
Living alone non -family
5,445
8,081
32.2
34.0
All other non -family
2,034
3,591
12.0
15.0
Non -family Total
7,479
11,672
44.3
49.1
TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
16,894
23,798
100.0
100.0
Source: US. Census. STF-!A Census of Population and Housing: 1990, Table DP -1. Profiles of
• General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
3.5 Households and Group Quarters
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
The U.S. Census defines a household as all of the people who occupy a housing unit. Households
are categorized as family and non -family. Family households include a householder and one or
more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage
or adoption. A non -family household is a householder living alone or with non -relatives only.
Household characteristics are diverse in comparison to the rest of the region. As of 2000,
Fayetteville has a total of 23,798 households. The number of households has increased
approximately 41 percent since 1990, when the number of households was 16,894.
Approximately half are family households and half are non -family households. The percent of
family households has declined from 55.7 percent in 1990 to 50.9 percent in 2000, while the
percent of non -family households has increased from 44.3 percent in 1990 to 49.1 percent in
2000. This is inconsistent with the regional household numbers, where 70 percent of the
households are families and 30 percent are non -families.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-11
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 3.8
HOUSEHOLD COMPARISONS
Fayetteville, NW Arkansas, Arkansas (2000)
Household Type
2000 Percent of Households
Fayetteville
NW Arkansas
Arkansas
Married couple family
37.7
57.6
54.3
Female -headed family,
no husband present
9.6
8.8
12.1
All other family
3.7
3.7
3.8
Living alone non -family
34.0
23.5
25.6
All other non -family
15.0
6.4
4.2
TOTAL
100.0
100.0
100.0
Source: U.S. Census, Table DP -1. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
MARRIED COUPLES. Married couples represent the largest share of households, with 37.7
percent of total households. Almost three -fourths of the family households are married couples.
The percent of households that are married couples declined between 1990 and 2000, from 44.3 •
to 37.7. The share of married couples in Fayetteville is considerably lower than the region, with
57.6 percent of all households.
FEMALE -HEADED HOUSEHOLDS. Female -headed households with no husband present
comprise 9.6 percent of all households, a slight increase from 8.8 percent in 1990. This is slightly
higher than the region where female -headed households represent 8.8 percent of total households,
but is less than the state with 12.1 percent of total households.
NON -FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS. The shift in married couples' share of the population can be
attributed to the significant increases in non -family households. In 2000, the total number of non -
family households was 11,672, an increase of approximately 56 percent from 7,479 in 1990. The
number of persons living alone comprise 34.0 percent of the total households, an increase from
32.2 percent in 1990. Further, other non -family households also experienced a marked increase,
from 12 percent of total households in 1990 to 15 percent in 2000. The non -family share of
households in Fayetteville is 49.1 percent, significantly higher than the region's 29.9 percent. In
the region, persons living alone account for less than one-fourth of the households and other non -
family households represent less than seven percent of the households.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-12
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• TABLE 3.9
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY SIZE
c....e«o..ue Woch;natnn Cn__ Renton Co.. Arkansas (1990 &20001
Fayetteville
Washington
County
Benton County
Arkansas
1990
200O
1990
2000
1990
2000
1990
2000
Average household size
2.25
2.21
2.50
2.52
2.56
2.6
2.57
2.49
Average family size
2.90
2.91
3.00
3.07
2.94
3.01
3.06
2.99
Source: US. Census, Social and Economic Characteristics, Fertility and Household and Family Composition.
1990; Table DP -l. Profiles of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
HOUSEHOLD AND FAMILY SIZE. Compared to the region and the state in 2000,
Fayetteville has the smallest average household size, 2.21, and smallest average family size, 2.91.
Household and family size averages have remained steady since 1990, with only slight shifts for
each average. Household size decreased from 2.25 in 1990 to 2.21 in 2000. Family size increased
slightly from 2.90 in 1990 to 2.91 in 2000.
• TABLE 3.10
GROUP QUARTERS
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000)
w.
1990
2000
Percent Change
Group Quarters
3,910
5,350
36.8
Institutionalized
475
1,420
198.9
Non -Institutionalized
3,435
3,930
14.4
Source: U.S. Census, STF-JA
Census
of Population and Housing:1990;
DP -1 Profile of General
Demographic Characteristics:2000.
GROUP QUARTERS. Persons not living in households are classified as living in group
quarters. Group quarters has two categories: (1) institutionalized persons, those under formally
authorized, supervised care or custody, and (2) non -institutionalized, such as those living in
college dorms, military quarters and group homes.
In 2000, 5,350 persons lived in group quarters. This is an increase of 36.8 percent from the 3,910
persons in 1990. The large increase is due significantly to an almost 200 percent increase in
institutionalized persons, from 475 in 1990 to 1,420 in 2000. Non -institutionalized persons
increased by approximately 14 percent from 3,435 in 1990 to 3,930 in 2000.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-13
EXISTING CONDITIONS • •
3.6 Educational Attainment •
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 1995
Educational attainment data from the 2000 Census was not available at the time the General
Plan was revised
Educational attainment is relatively high in Fayetteville compared to all of Washington County
and the State. Of the "permanent" population in 1990, persons 25 years and over, 9,211 or 40.4
percent, have an Associate or higher degree. Within this degreed group, 3,625 have a graduate or
professional degree.
In comparison, 16,274 or 23.9 percent, of all persons 25 years and over in the County have an
associate or higher degree. For the entire State, the same degreed group comprises 17.0 percent.
•
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
3-14
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 3.11
FUTURE POPULATION
Favetteville and Planning Area (1990-2020)
Year
City of Fayetteville
Including Planning Area
(Projected)
Actual
Projected
1990
42,247
42,247
50,620
1995
n/a
49,264
59,269
20O0
58,047
56,429
67,900
2005
n/a
63,595
77,196
2010
n/a
70,760
87,228
2015
n/a
77,925
96,060
2020
n/a
85,090
104,893
Source: Fayetteville General Plan 2020, December 1995. Northwest Arkansas
Regional Planning Commission, 1995.
3.7 Population Projections
Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, 1995
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
In 1995, the Northwest
Arkansas Regional Planning
Commission used building
permit data to develop future
population estimates for the
City of Fayetteville and it's
planning area. The average
number of dwelling units
permitted between 1980 and
1994 was 575.1 per year. This
average was used to project
future population to the year
2020. Fayetteville is projected
to grow by 35,826 people, for
a total population of 85,090 by
the year 2020. The actual
population for Fayetteville in
2000 surpassed the projected
population of 56,429 by 1,618
persons.
FIGURE 3.4
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Fayetteville (1990-2020)
„
•��r. .... .11. .1 1 .1
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
3-15
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
4 HOUSING
Key Findings
• The vacancy rate decreased from 10.3 in 1990 to 6.6 in 2000.
• Renter -occupied units outnumber owner -occupied units by 3,704 units.
• Persons per occupied unit is 221, one of the lowest in the region.
• The number of duplex and multifamily units increased at a greater rate than single family units,
with 53.5 percent and 40.8 percent, respectively.
• The most building permit activity in the 1990's occurred between 1993 and 1995 with 3,489
permits.
• In the 1990's, 48 percent of all units built were single family units, 13 percent were duplex, and
39 percent multifamily.
• Approximately one-fourth of all dwelling units were built between 1990 and 2000.
• Fifty percent of all housing is more than 20 years old.
4.1 Housing Occupancy And Tenure
. City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
OCCUPANCY. As in 1990, the number of renter -occupied housing units continues to be higher
than owner -occupied housing units, reflective of the large student population. According to the
2000 Census, the total number of occupied housing units increased by almost 41 percent, adding
6,904 units. Approximately 60 percent of the increase in total occupied units is due to the
increase in renter -occupied units, totaling 13,751 in 2000.
VACANCY. Part of the increase in occupied housing units is due to the occupancy of previously
vacant units. As shown in Table 4.1, the vacancy rate decreased from 10.3 percent in 1990 to 6.6
percent in 2000. A total of 1,669 units are vacant as of the 2000 Census. Fayetteville's vacancy
rate is significantly lower than the state, with a vacancy rate of 11.1, and the nation, with a
vacancy rate of 9.0. Decreasing vacancy rates have the potential of driving up rental rates and
home purchase prices.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-1
C
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 4:1
HOUSING OCCUPANCY AND TENURE
Fayetteville (1990 & 2000)
Occupancy
Housing Units
Percent of Total
Housing Units
1990
2000
Percent Change
1990
2000
Total Occupied Housing Units
16,894
23,798
40.8
89.7
93.4
Owner -occupied
7,337
10,047
36.9
38.9
39.4
Renter -occupied
9,557
13,751
43.8
50.7
53.9
Total Vacant Housing Units
1,941
1,669
-14.0
10.3
6.6
Total Housing Units
18,835
25,467
35.2
100.0
100.0
Source: U.S. Census, STF-1A Census ojPopulotion and Housing:1990, Table DP -I Profile of
General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
TABLE 4.2
PERSONS PER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT
Fayetteville, Bentonville, Lowell, Rogers, Springdale (2000)
Persons in
Households
Occupied Housing
Units
Persons per
Unit
Fayetteville
52,697
23,798
2.21
Bentonville
19,332
7,458
2.59
Lowell
5,013
1,914
2.62
Rogers
38,353
14,005
2.74
Springdale
45,224
16,149
2.81
Source: U.S. Census, Table DP -1 Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
PERSONS PER UNIT. Table 4.2 shows the number of persons per occupied housing unit is
2.21, a slight decrease from 2.25 in 1990. This figure is the lowest of other cities in the region.
Bentonville and Lowell are relatively consistent, with approximately 2.6 persons per unit. Rogers
and Springdale have significantly larger number of persons per unit with 2.74 and 2.81
respectively.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-2
0
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• TABLE 43
RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TYPE
Fayetteville
19911 & luuu
Number of Units
Percent of Total Units
1990
2000
Units
Added
(90-00)
Percent
Change
(90-00)
1990
2000
Single Family
9,754
13,731
3,977
40.8
54.5
52.4
Duplex and
Multifamily
8,128
12,479
4,351
53.5
45.5
47.6
Total
17,882
26,210
8,328
46.6
100.0
•
100.0
• 2000 Total Number of Units does not match the total number of units provided in the 1000 Census, as
indicated on Table 4.1, due to the fact that the 2000 total includes all units up to the end ofDecember
2000, while the 2000 Census was taken in the Spring of 1000. The total does not include mobile homes.
Source: 1990 Census, 2010 Genera! Plan and Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission and
1990-2000 Building Permit Counts.
4.2 Residential Housing Type
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
• Table 4.3 provides information on residential housing by type. To calculate 2000 number of
units, annual building permit data between 1990 and 2000 was added to data from the 1990
Census. Duplex and Multifamily are not separated because in 1990 duplexes were included in the
• category "2 to 4 units", thus combining duplexes with multifamily counts. Mobile home data for
2000 was not available.
The predominant type of housing is single family, comprising 52.4 percent of all units. In 2000,
there were 13,731 units, an increase of 40.8 percent from 1990. The number of duplexes and
multifamily is smaller than single-family units, however, those categories increased at a greater
rate than single family, with a 53.5 percent increase.
UNIVERSITY HOUSING. The University of Arkansas provides on -campus and off -campus
student housing facilities. On -campus facilities include twelve residence halls: two men's; two
women's, seven coed and one graduate coed. The residence halls house 3,018 students and 256
students are living in on -campus apartments.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-3
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 4.4 •
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
1 aonttavilla !1 9 9 0-7110 01
Single Family
Duplex
Multifamily
Total
Year
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
Units
Cost
1990
253
20,093,396
16
825,872
91
2,254,749
360
23,174,017
1991
259
21,375,180
62
3,046,482
297
7,922,555
618
32,344,217
1992
358
30,499,480
74
3,508,216
257
8,712,418
689
42,720,114
1993
434
41,357,967
256
14,327,068
342
9,252,860
1,032
64,937,895
1994
439
34,452,482
246
14,757,404
754
24,845,740
1,439
74,055,626
1995
512
41,971,871
186
10,892,617
320
8,792,484
1,018
61,656,972
1996
492
45,382,968
80
5,287,643
154
5,607,122
726
56,277,733
1997
265
25,634,794
64
4,238,765
281
8,137,810
610
38,011,369
1998
281
29,488,802
30
1,851,670
40
1,668,774
351
33,009,246
1999
365
38,368,783
54
3,887,588
515
23,641,276
934
65,897,647
2000
319
40,814,865
44
3,092,432
188
8,772,251
551
52,679,548
Total
3977
369,440,588
1112
65,715,757
3239
109,608,039
8328
544,764,384
% of
Total
47.76
67.82
13.35
12.06
38.89
20.12
100.0
100.00
Source: City ofFayetteville, inspections Division Records, 1990-2000
Note: Single Family units include detached and attached units.
4.3 Residential Building Permit Activity
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
As Table 4.4 shows, building permit activity between
1990
and 2000 has
been volatile. The total
number of units increased steadily between 1990 and
1994,
increasing by
1,079 units. Significant
increases in duplex and multifamily units contributed to the increase in building permit activity
in 1993 and 1994. In 1995, the number of units decreased and continued the decline until 1999.
That year the number of units increased by 583 units. By 2000, the numbers dropped again, down
to 551, from 934 in 1999. The cost of units followed a similar trend, with the total costs topping
out at $74,055,626 in 1994.
A total
of 8,328 units were built in Fayetteville between 1990 and 2000. Approximately 48
percent
of all units were
single-family and 39 percent
multifamily. Duplexes accounted for 13
percent
of all
units
built.
The value
of all
units during
this
time period
was $544,765,384.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-4
i
C
I •
I•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
FIGURE 4.1
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY
Fayetteville (1990-2000)
800
700
600 Single Family
500 t
Duplex
400 +
300 Multifamily
200 t
100
0
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Year
Source: Table 4.4
FIGURE 4.2
HOUSING TYPES CONSTRUCTED
Fayetteville (1990-2000)
Multifamily
38.9% Single Family
47.8%
Duplex
13.4%
Source: Table 4.4
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-5
E
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
I
TABLE 4.5
HOUSING - YEAR CONSTRUCTED
Fayetteville
Time Period
Units Built
. Percent of Total
1990 - March 2000
6,632
26.04
1980-1989
5,743
22.55
1970-1979
4,678
18.37
1960-1969
3,257
12.79
1950-1959
2,243
8.81
1940-1949
984
3.86
1939 or earlier
1,930
7.58
TOTAL
25467
100.00
Source: 2020 General Plan, U.S. Census, STF-I Census of Population and
Housing:I990, Table DP -1. Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 2000
4.4 Age of Housing
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
Almost 90 percent of
existing housing was built
during the last half of the
twentieth century and
more than one-fourth was
built during the last
decade. The largest
number of houses were
built between 1990 and
2000 with 6,632 units.
More than 50 percent of
housing is more than 20
years old. Approximately
2,900 units were built
prior to 1950 indicating a
number of units that could
face deterioration without
adequate maintenance.
a (gw�V
r 4l
•
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-6
•
•
• 1 •
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• TABLE 4.6
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING COSTS
Favetteville (20001
•
Cost Ranges
(in thousands)
Total
Percent of
Total
Averages
Cost
Square Feet
Cost/Sq. Ft.
SO -S34.9
1
0.3
$30,000
560
$53.57
S35-849.9
2
0.6
$45,450
1,392
$32.56
$50-74.9
56
17.6
$67,300
1,303
$51.66
$75-$99.9
72
22.6
$84,988
1,599
$53.15
$100-$149.9
95
29.8
S122,281
2,192
$55.74
$150-$199.9
46
14.4
$174,502
2,952
$59.12
$200-8299.9
42
13.2
$224,551
3,277
$68.53
$300-8399.9
2
0.6
$330,665
4,207
$78.61
5400-$499.9
1
0.3
5400,900
5,648
570.98
$500+
2
0.6
$685,836
4,431
$154.78
TOTAL
319
100
$130,150
2,182
$59.66
Source: Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission, euuu summary issue.
Note: Single Family Housing Costs include only material and labor casts from building permits.
4.5 Single Family Housing Costs
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, October 2001
In the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission 2000 Summary Issue, cost
comparisons for single family housing were provided. A total of 319 single family homes were
permitted in 2000. Half of the single family units cost between $75,000 and $150,000. The
average cost per single family unit was $130,150 with 2,182 average square feet per unit. The
average cost per square foot was $59.66.
Single family affordable housing is considered units under $35,000 for a family of four. The
definition will be updated when new housing cost information is released from Census 2000. As
Table 4.6 shows, one affordable unit was constructed in 2000.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-7
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
4.6 Gross Rent
Alfred N. Ruby, AICP, General Plan 2010
2000 Census data was not available at the time the General Plan was revised
In 1990, median
rent in Fayetteville was
$351 compared to $352 for all
of Washington
County
and
$274
for the
entire State. The
City's
median rent doubled
from the
$178 recorded
in
1980.
In 1990, 5,162, or 54.4 percent, of the total 9,493 renter -occupied units in Fayetteville had rents
in the $300-499 range. Approximately two-thirds of the County's more expensive rental units
$500 and over were located in the City.
4.7 Affordable Housing
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 1995
PURPOSE. Most of Fayetteville's earlier affordable housing was attractive to starter families
with modest but potentially growing incomes. Today, the need for affordable housing is also
applicable to individuals and families on fixed incomes such as the elderly, the growing number
of single, female -headed households and persons in public -assisted programs such as Section 8.
Fayetteville seeks to continue the provision of affordable housing within the City and its
Planning Area. Provisions are sought that encourage more affordable housing utilizing
conventional construction methods and locations within conventional settings. Fayetteville
further desires to avoid the detrimental social, economic and physical effects of concentrating
affordable housing. A more compatible, integrated approach with the community is desired. In
order to minimize the impact on public funding, private incentives are sought.
LOCATION AND DESIGN CRITERIA. Affordable housing units should be scattered
throughout the development in a manner that integrates them with all other units in the
development. The exterior design and construction of affordable units should appear similar to
all other units in the development. Affordable units may be smaller in size than all other units in
the development provided that their size, arrangement, and number does not violate applicable
building and zoning codes.
Subject to City approval, developments of affordable housing exclusively may be permitted.
When constructed separate of other types of residential development, affordable housing should
be compatible in design with approved affordable housing in other locations of the City.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-8
•
•
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
4.8 Future. Housing Needs
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 1995; September 2001
In 1995, the Planning Division estimated 13,845 additional dwelling units will be needed during
the period 1995 - 2020 to serve a total population of 85,090. This estimate is based on 35;826
additional residents at a ratio of 2.49 residents per dwelling unit and a 5 percent vacancy rate.
According to the previous housing projection study, a total of 34,173 housing units would be
needed by 2020 to serve the total projected population. As of 2000, approximately 75 percent of
that goal has been reached, with a total of 25,467 units. Approximately 8,706 more units are
needed by 2020. During the 1990s, 8,328 units were built. Therefore, if the trend during the
1990s continues, this goal could be reached shortly after 2010. However, actual future housing
needs may be higher than anticipated because population projections for 2000 were lower than
actual counts.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
4-9
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•
5 EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME
Key Findings:
• In Fayetteville, retail trade accounts for one-fourth of all establishments.
• The largest number of employees are in the manufacturing and retail trades.
• Employment in Fayetteville is projected to be at 45,250 persons by 2020.
• The MSA labor force increased by 39,175 persons between 1990 and 2000, 35.0 percent.
• The MSA unemployment rate dropped from 3.8 in 1990 to 2.1 in 2000.
• In 1999, the MSA per capita personal income (PCPI) was $24,213, an increase of 52.7 percent
from $15,859 in 1989.
5.1 Fayetteville Establishments and Employment by Industry
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
According to the 1997 Economic Census, Fayetteville had 1,588 establishments identified by
. North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). In Fayetteville, retail trade had the
largest number with 401 establishments. Retail accounted for one-fourth of all establishments in
Fayetteville and this number accounted for 30 percent of all retail establishments in the
Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), consisting of Benton and
Washington counties. Accommodation and food services had the second largest number of
establishments, 222, accounting for 14.0 percent of all establishments. The third largest number
of establishments were health care and social assistance facilities, 167 establishments, accounting
for 10.5 percent of all establishments. The smallest number of establishments were in the
educational services and arts, entertainment and recreation categories. The 1992 Economic
Census was tabulated using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes, therefore, data is
incompatible for comparison with historical data.
The highest number of employees were in the manufacturing (5,962 employees) and retail trade
(5,711) industries. Similar to the number of establishments, the smallest number of employees
were in the educational services and arts, entertainment and recreation categories.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
5-1
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 5.1 •
OCCUPATION
Favetteville
Employed persons 16 & over Number Percent of
Total
Executive, administrative & managerial 2,678 12.7
Professional specialty 4,350 20.6
Technical & related support 869 4.1
Sales 2,992 14.1
Administrative Support, including clerical 2,990 14.1
Private household 67 .3
Protective service 185 .9
Service, except protective & household 2,565 12.1
Farming, forestry & fishing 330 1.6
Precision production, craft & repair 1,532 7.2
Machine operators, assemblers & inspectors 1,258 6.0
Transportation & material moving 603 2.9
Handlers, equip. cleaners, helpers & labors 714 3.4
TOTAL 21.133 100.0
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990.
5.2 Fayetteville Occupation
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 1995
Census 2000 occupation data at the local level was not available at the time the General Plan
was revised
In 1990, total employment within the City of Fayetteville was 21,133. The largest employers in
the City were the University of Arkansas with 4,496 full- and part-time persons, Campbell Soup
with 1,080 and Tyson Foods with 561 employees.
The City had a relatively high percentage of persons employed in management and professional
specialties at 12.7 percent and 20.6 percent respectively. This characteristic was reflective of
Fayetteville as both the regional service center and the home of U of A. Retail sales employed
14.1 percent which was reflective of Fayetteville's position as the regional retail center. The two
occupations associated with manufacturing — precision production and machine
operator/assemblers — comprised 7.2 percent and 6.0 percent respectively.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
5-2
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• TABLE 5 2
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Source: Employment Security Commission, 1995
5.3 Fayetteville Employment Projections
City of Fayetteville Planning Division. 1995
Employment Security Commission data has been utilized to project future employment trends for
the 25 year planning period. The general assumption was made that the percentage of total
employment to total population would remain constant for the 25 year planning period. The
. estimated future employment was then utilized to project future land use needs for each type of
land use. The Employment Security Commission's total employment estimate for the City of
Fayetteville is 27,793 (May 1995), representing 53.18 percent of the total population in
Fayetteville. Assuming the ratio of employment to population remains constant and the
population is estimated at $85,090 in 2020, the estimated employment is 45,250. This is an
estimated 62.8 percent increase in employment
5.4 MSA Civilian Labor Force
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
The growth of the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA (consisting of Benton and Washington
Counties) is significant when compared to the state and the nation. In 2000, the MSA civilian
labor force was 148,175, an increase of 35.9 percent from 1990. Similarly, the labor force in
Washington County increased by 29.4 percent and by 41.6 percent in Benton County. These
growth rates are much higher than the 9.9 percent growth in Arkansas and 11.9 percent growth
for the nation.
Levels of employment increased as the labor force increased. This MSA trend is indicated by the
decrease of the unemployment rate from 3.8 in 1990 to 2.1 in 2000. In 2000, Washington County
had a slightly higher unemployment rate (2.3) than the MSA (2.1) and Benton County (2.0).
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
5-3
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 5.3
CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE
MSA, Washington County, Benton County (1990 & 2000)
MSA
Washington County
Benton County
1990
2000
%
Change
1990
2000
%
Change
1990
2000
%
Change
Civilian Labor
Force
109,000
148,175
35.9
61,100
79,050
29.4
48,800
69,125
41.6
Employment
105,750
145,000
37.1
58,570
77,250
31.9
47,000
67,750
44.1
Unemployment
4,150
3,175
(23.5)
2,350
1,800
(23.4)
1,800
1,375
(23.6)
Unemployment
Rate
3.8
2.1
--
3.8
2.3
-
3.7
2.0
--
Source: Arkansas Employment Security Department, Arkansas Labor Force Statistics, Civilian Labor Force Data,
1990-2000, httn://www.accessarkansas.or/esd
TABLE 5.4
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
Favetteville-Sorinadale-Rogers MSA (1990, 1995, 2000)
Industry
1990
1995
2000
Jobs
Percent
of Total
Jobs
Percent
of Total
Jobs
Percent
of Total
Nonfarm Payroll Jobs
100,600
100.0
131,100
100.0
153,200
100.0
Construction & Mining
3,100
3.1
5,500
4.2
7,000
4.5
Manufacturing
29,100
28.9
34,600
26.4
35,500
23.1
Transportation & Public
7,800
7.8
9,300
7.1
10,200
6.6
Trade
25,400
25.2
35,300
26.9
43,500
28.4
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
3,400
3.4
4,300
3.3
5,300
3.5
Services
16,600
16.5
24,700
18.8
31,800
20.8
Government
15,200
15.1
17,400
13.3
20,000
13.1
Source: Arkansas Employment Security Department, Arkansas Labor Force Statistics, Nonfarm Payroll Jobs,
1990-2000, htm://www.accessarkansas.orr/esd
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
5-4
•
C
0
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• TABLE 5.5
EMPLOYMENT BY INDUSTRY
MSA. Arkansas. Nation (2000)
Industry
MSA
Arkansas
Nation
Jobs
Percent
of Total
Jobs
Percent
of Total
Jobs •
Percent
of Total
Nonfarm Payroll Jobs
153,200
100.0
1,161,600
100.0
131,418
100.0
Construction & Mining
7,000
4.6
56,900
5.0
7,225
5.5
Manufacturing
35,500
23.1
251,400
21.6
18,437
14.0
Transportation & Public
10,200
6.7
70,300
6.1
6,993
5.3
Trade
43,500
28.4
267,000
22.9
30,190
23.0
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
5,300
3.5
46,200
3.9
7,618
5.8
Services
31,800
20.7
278,600
24.0
40,384
30.7
Government
20,000
13.0
191,300
16.5
20,572
15.7
Source. • Arkansas Employment Security Department, Arkansas Labor Force Statistics, Nonfarm Payroll Jobs,
1990-2000, htta://www.accessarkansas.orp/esd
. • In thousands
5.5 MSA Employment by Industry
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
According to Arkansas Labor Force Statistics, the total number of nonfarm payroll jobs in the
Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA increased by 30.3 percent between 1990 and 1995 and by
16.9 percent between 1995 and 2000. The total increase in nonfarm payroll jobs between 1990
and 2000 was 52,700 jobs, or 52.3 percent. During the same time period, the state increased
nonfarm payroll jobs slower than the MSA, with 25.7 percent growth.
Employment levels in the MSA between 1990 and 2000 suggest a shifts in the largest employers
between the manufacturing, trade and service industries. In 1990, the largest percent of jobs were
in manufacturing (28.9 percent of the total), wholesale and retail trade (25.2 percent), and the
service industry (16.5 percent). By 1995, the wholesale and retail trade industry became the
largest employer, with 26.9 percent of total jobs. The number of manufacturing, transportation
and government jobs decreased as a percent of the total, while services, construction and trade all
increased. This trend continued, and by 2000 the top three employers were trade (28.4 percent of
total), manufacturing (23.2 percent of total) and services (20.8 percent of total).
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
5-5
I •
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 5.6
INCOME
Fayetteville
Households
Number
Percent of Total
Less than 5,000
1,941
11.4
5,000 to 9,000
2,124
12.5
10,000 to 14, 999
2,139
12.6
15;000 to 24,999
3,446
20.3
25,000 to 34,999
2,499
14.7
35,000 to 49,999
2,272
13.4
50,000 to 74,000
1,669
9.8
75,000 to 99,999
449
2.6
100,000 to 149,000
310
1.8
150,000 or more
160
.9
TOTAL
17,009
100
Median Household Income = $21,202
Source: 2010 General Plan, U.S. Bureau of Census, 1990.
5.6 Fayetteville Income
Alfred N Raby, AICP, General Plan 2010
Census 2000 income data at the local level was not available at the time the General Plan was
revised
In comparison with the MSA's household median income of $30,353 in 1990, Fayetteville had a
lower income of $21,202. The difference was attributable largely to the presence of university
students in Fayetteville. Students typically had lower incomes, if any. While there is an absence
or significantly lower income associated with the student population, the student presence does
contribute approximately $20,000 in sales each per year to the local economy. The City had
approximately 35 percent of its households with income higher than the MSA's household
median income. The upper incomes within the City were attributable largely to University
employees and specialized professionals.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
5-6
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• TABLE 5.7
HOUSEHOLD INCOME AND POVERTY
Wac6;notnn Cn-- Renton Co.. Arkansas (1997 Model -based Estimates)
Washington County
Benton County
Arkansas
Median Household Income
$32,188
$36,004
$27,874
Persons Below Poverty (%)
13.5%
10.1%
17.5%
Children Below Poverty (%)
19.1%
163%
25.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau; State and County QuickFacts;
5.7 Regional Household Income and Poverty
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
Washington County has a higher median household income than the state, but lower than Benton
County. According to 1997 model -based estimates, Washington County had a median household
income of $32,188 while Benton County had a median household income of $36,004. Arkansas
had a median household income of $27,874.
• Persons and children below poverty is considerably higher in Washington County than Benton
County. Both counties are significantly lower than the percent for the state. In 1997, 13.5 percent
of the population in Washington County was estimated to be below poverty. Approximately 10
percent of the population in Benton County was estimated to be below poverty. Almost one -fifth
of the children in Washington County are estimated to be living below the poverty line.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
5-7
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 5.8
PER CAPITA PERSONAL INCOME (PCPI)
MSA, Washington Co., Benton Co. (1989 & 1999)
MSA
Washington County
Benton County
1989 PCPI
$15,859
$15,443
$16,346
1999 PCPI
$24,213 ,
$22,115
$26,435
Ten -Year Average
Annual Growth Rate
4.3
3.7
4.9
Source: BEARFACTS 1989-99, Regional Economic Information System, Bureau ofEconomic Analysis.
5.8 MSA Per Capita Personal Income
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
•
In 1999, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA had a per capita personal income (PCPI) of
$24,213. This PCPI ranked 206'" out of 318 metropolitan areas in the United States and was 85
percent of the national average, $28,546. This was an increase of 52.7 percent, up from $15,859
in 1989, with an average annual growth rate of 4.3 percent over the past ten years. This average
annual growth rate is slightly lower than the average annual growth rate for the state and nation,
4.9 percent and 4.4 percent, respectively. •
Washington County's PCPI and average annual growth rate continues to be slightly lower than
Benton County. Washington County had a 1999 PCPI of $22,115 and Benton County had a PCPI
of $26,435. Between 1989 and 1999, Washington County had an average annual growth rate of
3.7 percent and Benton County had an average annual growth rate of 4.9 percent.
5.9 MSA Total Personal Income
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
Total personal income includes all earnings, dividends, interest, rent and transfer payments
received by the residents of a community. In 1999, the MSA had a total personal income (TPI) of
$6,901,119,000. This TPI ranked 164`" in the United States. This was an increase of 111 percent
from 1989, when the TPI was $3,268,551. The average annual growth rate of TPI over the past
10 years was 7.8 percent, which is significantly higher than the state average annual growth rate
of 5.8 percent and the national average annual growth rate of 5.4 percent.
In 1989, Washington County had a higher TPI than Benton County ranking second in the state;
but this trend reversed by 1999. Washington County had a 1999 TPI of $3,241,870,000,
accounting for 5.7 percent of the state total. Benton County's TPI accounted for 6.5 percent of
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
5-8
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
0 TABLE 5.9
• TOTAL PERSONAL INCOME (TPI)
MSA. Washington Co.. Benton Co. (1989 & 1999)
MSA
Washington County
Benton County
1989 TPI
$3,268,551,000
$1,716,162,000
$1,552,389,000
1999 TPI
$6,901,119,000
$3,241,870,000
$3,659,249,000
Ten -Year Average
Annual Growth Rate
7.8
6.6
9.0
Source: BEARFAC1S 1989-99, Regional Economic Information System, Bureau of Economic Analysis.
the state total. Washington County had an average annual growth rate of TPI over the past ten
years of 6.6 percent and Benton County had an average annual growth rate of 9.0 percent.
5.10 MSA Earnings by Industry
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, September 2001
Earnings of persons employed in the MSA increased from $2,396,419,000 in 1989 to
$5,291,293,000 in 1999, an average annual growth rate of 8.2 percent. In 1999, the largest
. earnings by industry were retail trade, 22.1 percent of earnings; services, 17.4 percent; and
nondurable goods manufacturing, 12.1 percent. This is a significant shift in earnings by industry
since 1989, when the largest industries were nondurable goods manufacturing, 15.8 percent of
earnings; services, 14.6 percent; and retail trade, 14.1 percent. Of the industries that accounted
for at least five percent of earnings in 1999, the slowest growing from 1989 to 1999 was
transportation and public utilities (7.7 percent of earnings in 1999), which increased at an
average annual rate of 5.0 percent; the fastest was retail trade, which increased at an average
annual rate of 13.2 percent.
Washington County does not comparatively reflect the trends of the MSA. For example, the
largest industries in 1999 were services (19.9 percent, compared with 15.7 percent in 1989), state
and local government (14.1 percent, compared with 16.3 percent in 1989) and nondurable goods
manufacturing (12.3 percent, compared with 14.2 percent in 1989). Retail is not in the top three
industries as it was in the MSA. The fastest growing industry was services and the slowest was
transportation and public utilities, as they were in the MSA. Benton County does reflect the MSA
trend, with the same top three industries, except that the slowest growing industry was durable
goods manufacturing.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
5-9
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
6 COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 1995, 2001
6.1 Background
This section provides a general overview of the existing City services and facilities and other
service providers to residents of Fayetteville, the surrounding communities of Elkins, West Fork,
Farmington, Greenland, Johnson, and other areas.
The City Council on February 7, 1995, passed Resolution No. 13-95 directing planning staff and
the Planning Commission to propose a revised comprehensive land use plan to the City Council
by August 1, 1995. As part of that resolution, a policy statement was included with regard to
where new development may occur based on infrastructure location, existing capacity, and
planned capacity.
Section 3. (E) of the resolution states:
. A plan for the accommodation of the necessary growth in these undeveloped and
underdeveloped areas, including the reservation of open space for parks, recreation, and
the preservation of the character of the city, at all times maximizing the utilization of
existing infrastructure for the purposes of efficiency and economy of development, and
minimizing development where new infrastructure would be required, or where
existing infrastructure would be overtaxed The plan shall specify development densities
appropriate to different areas of the City, in accordance with sound principals of urban
design, and shall provide for transportation alternatives to automobiles, including
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
This section is in response to Resolution No. 13-95 and provides base information from which
additional growth management plans will be developed. In October, 2001, the chapter was
revised to include changes since the 1995 plan.
6.2 Organization of this Section
The Planning Division along with other City divisions and departments has developed,
researched, and compiled as much information as possible on city services and facilities in order
to develop the type of land use plan which was prescribed in Resolution No. 13-95.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-1
• •
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
This element has been divided into sections each relating to a service or facility provided to
residents of the City and surrounding communities. The information should be viewed as a
starting point to ultimately answer the resolution's directive of "...at all times maximizing the
utilization of existing infrastructure for the purposes of efficiency and economy of
development, and minimizing development where new infrastructure would be required, or
where existing infrastructure would be overtaxed."
6.3 Fire Department
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
Fire Department apparatus consists of pumpers, rescue trucks, aircraft rescue and firefighting
trucks, brush trucks, HazMat trucks, air service trucks, command cars, fire stations and computer
equipment. Pumpers are the basic unit of a fire department that carry personnel, protective
equipment, hose and nozzels. A rescue truck is designed to carry personnel and equipment for
extricating victims from entrapment. A aircraft rescue and firefighting truck is designed to
extinguish aircraft fires. A brush truck is used to put out field fires. Hazardous materials are
handled with the HazMat truck. The air service truck provides breathing air for firefighters
working in large fires. The command cars are driven by administrative officers.
TABLE 6.1
FIRE DEPARTMENT RESOURCES
Employees
89 Civil Service Certified Personnel
I Civilian Secretary
I Civilian Programer/Analyst
Source: Fayetteville Fire Department,
Apparatus
6 Engines
2 Ladder/Engines
I Rescue Truck
I Haz-Mat/Tactical Rescue
I Aircraft Rescue (A.R.F.F.)
1 Brush Truck
1 Air Service Truck
5 S.U.V's - Fire Chief,
Assistant Fire Chief, Training
Officer, Shift Commander,
Assistant Fire Marshal
2 Pick Ups - Fire Marshal,
Assistant Fire Marshal
Reserve Apparatus
I Ladder/Engine (1974)
1 Engine (1986)
2 Engines in poor condition (1978,
1980)
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-2
i
i
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• Fire Stations: Fayetteville has six (6) fire stations. Fire Station #4 and #6 moved to new
facilities in 1999. Three stations are 20 to 36 years old and in fair to good condition. They have
many years of use left, but have become very expensive to maintain. A new fire station is
schedule for construction in 2004 at Wedington and Rupple.
Station
1 (Headquarters)
303
West Center
Station
2
708
North Garland
Station
3 (Airport, not staffed)
385
Lancaster
Station
4
3385 Plainview
Station
5
833
North Crossover
Station
6
900
Hollywood
Office Equipment: Office equipment includes two computers, with one in need of upgrade. The
immediate and most pressing need is to acquire seven PC's to be divided among the four sub-
stations and three at Station #1.
Communication Equipment: The Fire Department is a participant in the City's 800 Megahertz
city wide radio system. This involves 21 mobile and 51 portable radios with six base stations.
Training Facilities: The Fire Department has a classroom on the second floor of Station 1 as
• well as an office for a Training Officer. The Airport Fire Station has a classroom and training
office on the second floor. This is considered Phase One of the Training Facility.
Future Service
The City will need 8 fire stations by 2005 and 10 or 11 by 2020.
Replacement fire apparatus:
• 4 pumpers between 1999 and 2005
• 1 aerial device between 1999 and 2005
• 3 replacement pumpers between 2005 and 2020
• 1 additional pumper for each additional station built
• 1 replacement and 1 additional aerial device between 2005 and 2020
The City needs to construct and operate a full time training facility for the Fire Department. This
facility should be built as soon as possible, but between 2000 and 2005 at the latest.
The Department anticipates that the area of the City will increase due to annexations. Asa result,
priority should be placed on developing existing areas currently within the City over annexations
to limit the City's land area size.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 KevlsIon
6-3
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Fire Contracts (outside city limits): The Department presently services over 300 contracts. •
This should be the maximum number and no more should be issued. At the very least the City
should establish the current outer borders for rural contracts as permanent borders, and not
enlarge these borders as the city limit grows.
If all the stated improvements discussed herein were implemented, the Fire Department feels that
it could serve the City adequately as it grows if that growth is in accordance with projections.
6.4 Library
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
The Fayetteville Public Library has one main branch located just east of the Washington County
Courthouse at 217 East Dickson. The library houses 115,000 items including books, audiotapes,
microfilms, videocassettes and compact discs. In 2000, circulation was 405,000 with a total of
435,000 visitors, or 1,200 visitors per day. Current staff consists of 26.6 employees and 4.6 of
those employees have a Master of Library Science.
In the Library's Master Plan for Services and Facilities: 1998-2020, the existing facility was
found to have outgrown its capacity for materials, public seating, programs, advanced technology
and staff/volunteer work areas. On August 15, 2000, voters approved a one -cent sales tax to help
fund a portion of the estimated $22.5 million cost for a new facility. The new facility will be
located at the southwest comer of Mountain and School. It will be approximately 77,000 square
feet and expandable up to 90,000 square feet. The new facility will allow the library to increase
all collections, expand the number of computer work stations and provide more public seating
and parking. Anticipated completion date is 2003.
6.5 Parks and Recreation
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
One of Fayetteville's greatest assets is its wide diversity of recreational areas and open space.
Today Fayetteville has 55 parks and lakes totaling 3,292 acres. Ten parks are located at schools,
31 are developed and 14 are undeveloped. Approximately 90 percent of all city park land is
undeveloped. As more people move into the area, it is important that ample land be provided for
both active and passive recreation.
Number of Employees: 29 Full-time
115 Part-time
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-4
0
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Park Type and Acreage:
TABLE 6.2
PARK LAND
Fayetteville (2001)
Type
Undeveloped
Developed
Lease
Total
No.
Acres
No.
Acres
No.
Acres
No.
Acres
Mini
2
.95
4
2.03
1
.43
7
3.41
Neighborhood
8
69.16
8
77.02
6
22
22
168.18
Neighborhood/Special Use
0
0
1
5
2
16
3
21
Special Use
0
0
5
182.99
0
0
5
182.99
Community
0
0
3
113.76
2
19
5
132.76
Regional
3
1524
6
189.26
2
298.6
11
2011.86
Greenway
3
21.3
1
19.92
0
0
4
41.22
TOTAL
16
1615.41
28
589.98
13
356.03
57
2561.42
Source: Preliminary Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Lose & Associates, Inc., 2001
TABLE 6.3
PARK FACILITIES
Fayetteville (2001)
Facility Type
Number
Playgrounds
31
Tennis Courts
12
Basketball
23
Handball
2
Softball / Baseball
2
Community Center
1
Pools
I
Soccer
18
Volleyball
5
Pavilions
12
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-5
•, EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 6.3
PARK FACILITIES
Fayetteville (2001)
Trails
9.55 miles
Gymnasiums
5
Racquetball
2
Inline Skating
I
Source: Preliminary Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Master
Plan, Lose & Associates, Inc., 2001
TABLE 6.4
EXISTING AND NEEDED PARK LAND
Fayetteville Park Districts (2001)
Northwest
Northeast
Southwest
Southeast
Total
Population (estimated -2001)
14,574
13,115
22,161
13,350
63,200
Existing Acres
136.44
268.89
72.68.
1785.1
2,263.11
NRPA Recommended Acres
153
137.7
232.69
140
663.39
Need()/Excess+
(16.56)
+131.19
(160.01)
+1,645.10
+1,599.72
Source: Preliminary Fayetteville Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Lose & Associates, Inc., 2001
The condition of existing resources is varied. Some facilities in the older parks have been there
for close to 20 years. Since the mid 1970's new standards have been developed, including
passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (A.D.A.), and park departments are expected to
work toward compliance.
In addition to new standards, years of vandalism and heavy use have taken their toll on some of
the older park facilities. Approximately $4,522,000.00 of identified needs by 2010 for
replacement or renovation have been included in Capital Improvement Program (CIP) plans and
unfunded plans for existing park facilities. Vehicles and computer capability must also be
updated as time passes.
The parks and recreation maintenance program is operating out of a building built in 1927. This
facility is inadequate for a maintenance program the size of Fayetteville. A new maintenance
facility needs to be included in any future CIP requests.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
6-6
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• The city has agreements to work with local recreation and activity groups to provide additional
services to Fayetteville residents. The city has an agreement with the Boys and Girls Club to
construct a new building and accept some programming responsibility. The Botanical Garden
Society of the Ozarks leases land on the southeast side of Lake Fayetteville to provide a non-
profit garden for education, environmental, recreation and scientific purposes. City funds are
appropriated for the staff and program expenses of the Community Adult Center, which is
planning to construct a new center in Walker Park.
Future Service
In 2001, Lose and Associates prepared the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The plan outlines
the development of the Parks and Recreation Division in the next ten years. Reference the plan
for future service planned by the Parks and Recreation Division.
6.6 Police Department
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
Number of Employees: Non -uniform - 46
. Uniform - 98
Total- 144
Fleet: Police Cars - 32
Sport Utility Vehicles -7
Wagons/Vans - 2
Motorcycles - 2
Capital Facilities: Police Station/City Jail -
The Police Department has four divisions: Support Services, Patrol, Drug Enforcement Program,
and Central Dispatch. The city jail takes in approximately 10,000 offenders each year. The police
department has a goal of maintaining emergency response times of five minutes or less and a 50
percent clearance rate of all investigations. The department emphasizes community oriented
policing.
Future Service
As population increases, police related calls for service will rise and therefore the need for
additional personnel and equipment will increase accordingly. Also, as new areas are annexed
into the City, it will affect the Police Department's response time to calls which in turn will also
create the need for additional personnel and equipment. The department intends to provide more
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-7
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
neighborhood and bicycle patrol and increase visibility in public areas, such as city parks and
Dickson Street. It is the Police Department's opinion that it will be able to serve all citizens with
the above support.
6.7 School District
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
Fayetteville Public School District has 16 schools consisting of 10 elementary schools (grades K-
5), 2 middle schools (6t° & 7`" grades), 2 junior high schools (8'" & 9'" grades), and 2 high schools
(10t°, 11'", and 12'" grades). A special program for at -risk students is located at the west high
school campus. Total enrollment in September 2001 was 8,148, an approximately 18 percent
increase from 1992 enrollment figures.
Facility improvements since 1995 have included new construction and renovation. Four new
schools have been constructed: two elementary schools, Vandergriff and Holcomb, and two
middle schools, Holt and McNair. In 1997, both junior high schools were renovated and in 1999,
all older elementary schools were renovated. The school district has no immediate plans for new
construction.
TABLE 6.5
FAYETTEVILLE PUBLIC SCHOOLS
(Fall 2001)
Elementary
Middle
Junior
High
TOTAL
No. of Schools
9
2
2
2
16
Enrollment (2001)
3,572
1,234
1,282
2,060
8,148
School Names
Asbell
McNair
Ramay
East
Butterfield Trail
Holt
Woodland
West
Happy Hollow
Holcomb
Jefferson
Leverett
Root
Vandergriff
Washington
Source: Fayetteville Public School District, Associate Superintendent of Operations, September. 2001.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-8
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Solid Waste Division
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
Number of Employees:
Residential Waste Collection
Residential Recycling Collection
Commercial Services
Materials Recovery Facility
Compost Facility
Yard Waste Collection
Administration
Total Number of Employees
Residential Waste Collection
Residential Recycling Collection
Commercial Waste Collection
Bulky Waste Collection
Roll -Off Container Trucks
% Ton Pick -Up
'h Ton Pick Up
% Ton Flat Bed Truck
Service Call Cars
Total Number of Fleet Vehicles
Services Provided (2001):
Residential Waste Collection Residential Bulky Waste Collection
Residential Recycling Collection Commercial Waste Collection
Commercial Recycling Yard Waste Collection
Composting Operations
In -House Recycling (Schools/City Offices/Small Businesses)
Community Programs (Community Clean - Ups/Curb the Clutter)
.Operations of the Materials Recovery Facility
Marketing and Disposition of Processed Recycled Materials
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 •
6-9
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Number of Customers Serviced:
Single Family Residents
20,543
Commercial Accounts
1,594
Business/Residential Combination
57
Multi -Family Dwellings
323
Duplexes
176
Non -Profit Organizations
123
Government Agencies
235
Industrial Accounts
29
Total Number of Customers Served 23,080
Future Service
The Solid Waste and Recycling Division has evaluated several possible improvements to
operational protocols. First, the division's mission is to promote waste reduction practices,
encourage re -use of resources, provide recycling options and to provide disposal services for that
which cannot be salvaged. The Division's primary goal is to provide efficient, convenient and
cost effective services for customers. An objective of this Division is to balance the local
economy, urban ecology and general efficiency with any services provided.
The Solid Waste and Recycling Division is an enterprise fund supported through user fees. •
Increased residents require increased service levels, which can be facilitated through the proper
implementation of user fees. The user fees, if structured correctly, should give the financial
capability to continue providing solid waste and recycling services with any level of growth in
the City.
Services require significant equipment and personnel. With the significant growth of the City
during the past five years, these resources are being taxed at maximum levels. Currently, the
services provide by the City Solid Waste and Recycling Division have not been matched with
adequate personnel and equipment.
The following criteria would be used to request additional personnel and equipment to provide
current levels of services:
Residential Waste - Every 800 additional single-family dwellings would require one
additional residential recycling solid waste route. Each residential
solid waste route expansion would require two additional full-time
employees and one additional solid waste vehicle.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision ..
6-10
I
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Residential Recycling - Every 600 additional single-family dwellings would require one
additional residential recycling route. Each residential recycling
route expansion would require two additional full-time employees
and one additional recycling route.
Commercial Services - Every 175 additional commercial establishments would require one
additional commercial solid waste route. Each commercial solid
waste route expansion would require one additional frill -time
employee and one additional solid waste vehicle.
Composting Services - This facility needs to be continually monitored for volume
increases. Every additional 500 tons generated annually would
require one additional route worker and vehicle. The Division
recently made curbside yard waste collection available for City
residents and anticipates a request of additional personnel and
equipment for FY 2002.
The Solid Waste and Recycling Division can accommodate any new development. However,
current personnel and equipment levels are inadequate to meet current community demands.
. The South Washington County Transfer Station projected in the last general plan will begin in
2002. The Three County Solid Waste District will fund the building and development of this
County facility. The City of Fayetteville will not expend any funds on this project.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-11
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
6.9 Street Division
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
Number of Employees:
Area of Service:
Fleet:
28 Full-time
5 Full-time equivalents for summer help
Corporate City Limits of Fayetteville
TABLE 6.6
STREET DIVISION EQUIPMENT
Fayetteville (2001)
Equipment
No.
Condition
Equipment
No.
Condition
Oil Distributor
1
Fair (1978)
Broom
I
Good
Roller
4
Good
S.U.V.
1
Good
Patch Truck
I
Good
Truck
4
Fair
Sweeper
2
Good
Water Truck
I
Poor
Paver
I
Good
Dump Truck
5
Good
Concrete Mixer
I
Good
Mower
2
Good
Oil Distributor
1
Good
Mower (Boom)
2
Good
Ditch Cleaner
I
Fair
Hoe with Impactor
I
Poor
Track Loader
I
Fair
Loader
I
Good
Backhoe
2
Good
'Fri -Axle Dump
4
Good
Salt Spreader
4
Good
Flatbed Dump
I
Good
Tandem Dump
4
Good
Tractor
I
Good
Graders
2
l Fa r, 1 Good
Dozer
2
1 Fair, 1 Good
Concrete Saw
1
Poor
Trailer
2
Good
Compressor
1
Good
Source: Street Division, October 2001
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-12
9
i
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• The Street Division foresees the need to increase personnel and equipment by 50 percent of 2001
levels in order to effectively meet the service requirements of the year 2020, with costs projected
to be $5-6 million dollars annually.
By the year 2010, due to the area's growth, the Street Division estimates the need for another
facility located in the northwest quadrant of the City. This need will also require approximately
$1 million dollars for land and improvements to the land. The time required to put this facility in
operation is approximately 2 years.
Servicing new development would be most efficient if it occurred northwest and southwest of the
City providing completion of the above mentioned new facility.
6.10 Traffic Division
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
Employees: 7
Fleet: 3
. Between 1995 and 2001, the traffic division relocated the Traffic Shop to Happy Hollow Road
and replaced the Sign Maintenance Truck. The Traffic Division office is adequate but the
computers need to be replaced. As of Fall 2001, 60 traffic signals are 99% in compliance with the
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Approximately 6,000 traffic signs, with the
exception of stop signs that were replaced with 3M Hi -Intensity signs on an FHWA project, are
in need of major replacement to ensure a 10-15 year life span. Traffic continues the maintenance
of 35 miles of street stripping, one parking deck, and 700 parking meters.
Future Service
Projected needs for the next 25 years:
• 50-75 additional traffic signals
• A main frame computer traffic signal system capable of making traffic
coordination decisions
• 10,000 sign installations
• A new operation center will be required in 10-15 years
• A fiber-optic communication system for mainframe traffic control system
Demand for traffic control devices will double in the next 10-15 years and triple by 2020. The
City will need another Traffic Supervisor, three additional sign crews (six people) and three more
traffic signal technicians. The Traffic Shop will need to be expanded to accommodate a central
traffic system control station and. necessary equipment or be replaced with a new facility.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN ZOZO • ZUUi xevlslon
6-13
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Related equipment needs are: •
• Additional bucket truck
• Two sign/maintenance trucks
• Traffic Superintendent/Technician vehicle
• Concrete saw, air compressor and other traffic maintenance equipment.
6.11 Wastewater Collection and Treatment
Inventory and Condition of Existing Resources
Number of Employees: 28
Collection System. The original wastewater collection system was built in 1889. The system is
a network of gravity wastewater pipelines (sewer lines) and pressurized
force mains with pumps or lift stations. The system consists of 400 miles
of gravity sewer lines ranging between 6 and 36 inches; 25 lift stations;
and 40 miles of pressure force mains. Sections of the collection system are
near capacity and overload in wet weather.
Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The city owns and operates one treatment plant, Paul R. Noland
Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on Fox Hunter Road. The treatment
plant serves Fayetteville, Elkins, Farmington, Greenland and parts of
Johnson. The facility was designed to accommodate 12.6 million gallons
per day on an average day basis. The system uses surface water disposal of
wastewater effluent in the White River and parts of Mudd Creek. Sludge
disposal is applied to a hay farming operation. Aerobic digesters are used
to control odor, however odor continues to be a concern of surrounding
neighbors.
Future Services
Collection System. The existing collection system will require continual maintenance. In order
to serve the growth on the west side, new sewer lines will need to be
installed. The lines will need to range between 10 and 36 inches.
Treatment Facility. In 1997, CH2M Hill prepared a Wastewater Facilities Plan that identified
the existing conditions and future needs of the treatment plant. The plan
was updated in 2001. In 2000, the facility reached 94 percent of it's
capacity. Additionally, based on projected wastewater needs for the year
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
6-14
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• 2020, average daily flows are projected to be 21.5 million gallons per day,
10 million gallons more than the existing capacity. Because of the critical
need to expand treatment services, in 1999, the city purchased 300 acres
on the southwest side to construct a new wastewater treatment facility. The
Westside Treatment Facility will treat flows in the Illinois River Basin and
the existing facility will serve the White River Basin. Only 50 acres of the
site will be used for construction of the facility, the remaining land will be
retained as open space and passive recreational use.
6.12 Water Supply
The Water System Master Planning Study dated June 1989 was updated in October 1996. Data
provided in the updated plan was used to gather data for this section.
Beaver Water District
Fayetteville purchases all of it's water from the Beaver Water District. The district maintains the
Joe M. Steele Water Treatment Plant and the Hardy W. Croxton Water Treatment Plant, both
located east of Lowell.
S.
6.13 Water Distribution System
The city is served by five hydraulic pressure planes that includes six ground storage tanks and
one elevated tank. Total storage capacity is 27 million gallons. In October 1993, a high service
pump station was constructed in Fayetteville. The surge tank at Fitzgerald Mountain has a
capacity of 1/4 million gallons. The pump station has two large pumps that deliver 30.6 million
gallons of treated water to Fayetteville.
Future Services
The average daily use in 1995 was 12.44 million gallons. The projected average day use by 2015
is 22.23, almost double the daily use in 1995.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
6-15
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
TABLE 6.7
WATER USE PROJECTIONS
Fayetteville (1995-2015)
Year Average Day Maximum Day Maximum Hour
(MG) (MG) (MG)
1995 (actual) 12.44 21.56 37.32
2000 13.67 27.34 48.21
2005 16.07 32.15 48.21
2015 22.23 44.45 66.69
Source: City of Fayetteville Water System Master Planning Study, McGoodwin,
Williams and Yates Inc., October 1996.
Note: MG=million gallons
Storage requirements are determined by the needs of operational, fire flow and emergency
storage. Total storage requirements by 2015 are projected to be 57.4 million gallons.
TABLE 6.8
WATER STORAGE PROJECTIONS
Fayetteville (1995-2015)
Year Operation Fire Emergency Total
(MG) (MG) (MG) (MG)
1995 4.3 3.0 24.9 32.2
2000 5.5 3.5 27.3 36.3
2005 6.4 4.0 32.1 42.6
2015 8.9 5.0 44.5 57.4
Source: City of Fayetteville Water System Master Planning Study, McGoodwin,
Williams and Yates Inc., October 1996.
Note: MG= minion gallons
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
6-16
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•
7 PLANNING CONSTRAINTS AND RESOURCES
Alfred N. Raby, General Plan 2010 "Capacity of Growth"
7.1 Geological History
The City of Fayetteville is located on the northwestern edge of the Boston Mountains along the
southeastern rim of the Springfield Plateau. Elevations within Fayetteville range between 1,100
to 1,500 feet above sea level.
The eastern
and
southern
portions of the
area are hilly uplands characterized by domelike
formations.
The
portions
to the west and
north are more level and consist of deep soils.
Most of Fayetteville is underlain by black shale and Boone limestone of Mississippian and
Morrowien age. The rock is dense and somewhat resistant to weathering. Where exposed to the
surface this rock has created some prominent natural features.
• There has been little folding where some sub -surface areas have been pushed up and folded over
adjoining areas. There has been faulting wherein sub -surface areas have separated creating a
fault line or crack along which one area can move independent of another. Two such•faults have
been found within the general Fayetteville area. The Fayetteville fault dissects the middle of the
city from southwest to northeast. The White River fault runs west -east along the area between
Fayetteville and Springdale. No activity has been experienced in either of these faults in recorded
history. Major development along these faults should include seismic engineering.
7.2 Soils
Fayetteville is located on the divide between the White River watershed and the Illinois River
watershed. The soils of the White River watershed in the south and east of the City were mostly
derived from the Boston Mountains plateau; the soils of the Illinois River watershed were mostly
derived from the Springfield plateau. The valleys in both of these eroded plateaus are floodplains
consisting of terraced soils. The soil associations of the Boston Mountains formed under
hardwoods and are underlain mainly by acid sandstone, siltstone and shale, or by alluvium
derived from these rocks. The soils of the Springfield plateau also formed under hardwoods.
They are underlain by silty deposits or cherty limestone, or by alluvium derived from these
sources.
•
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-1
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
FIGURE 7.1
GEOLOGICAL FAULT LOCATION
GEOLOGICAL
FAULT LOCAT
: fµ4
•
: -
.ice•
:.•
iJi ; a ;ti , ,4t} _ i•b 1 uilll .
}
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-2
EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•• The Soils Location Map depicts the individual soil series within the Fayetteville planning area
boundaries. Soils shown in shades of red are the Boston Mountain -derived soils, shades of green
and yellow represent Springfield plateau soils and shades of blue indicate stream beds and
terraced soils. The lines separating these hilltop, plateau and valley soil divisions also represent
the steepest slopes in the planning area and generally conform to the most restrictive slopes
illustrated in the Slope Analysis Map.
Soil characteristics are an important determinant of land use. Steep slopes and floodplains are
less suitable for more urban forms of development and may require special treatment. Ideally,
these areas should be reserved for open space, passive recreation, conservation and agriculture.
Where more intensive development of these areas is permitted, performance standards should be
utilized in mitigating impacts to the environment. Soils with high water tables and poor
percolative ability greatly increase the cost of community sewerage systems. Edaphic conditions
can also lead to increased stormwater infiltration and stress the capacity of wastewater facilities.
Soils also dictate engineering requirements for industrial use and trafficways. Many of the soils
in and around the urbanized area are stony and rocky, have high shrink -swell potential, or have
low load -bearing or traffic -supporting capacity. .
Most of the land in the Fayetteville planning area has some restrictions for urban development.
The Soil -Based Engineering Restrictions Map groups soil series by degree of suitability for urban
. development. The Map can be summarized by a description of the four major areas where soil
limitations are most restrictive:
• Southwest quadrant of the planning area. Almost the entire quadrant is covered by the
most restrictive soils. Moderately restrictive soils occupy the area between Wedington
Road and U.S. Highway 62 west of Interstate 540.
• Southeast extreme of the planning area. Included are pockets of the most restrictive soils
around the country club and along the West Fork of the White River.
• Eastern edge of the existing city limits. A large mass of the most restrictive soils is
located between Mission Boulevard and Crossover Road. This area is partially developed
with residences.
• Northeast edge of the older city. Pockets of the most and moderately restrictive soils are
located between Mission Blvd. and Crossover Road. The area is partially developed with
residences.
Generally, the western and extreme northeastern portions of the planning area contain soils with
the least restrictions. These soils are sufficiently permeable to be suitable for septic tank
drainfields. Perched watertable occurrences are more frequent in the extreme west. Some
watertable restrictions are found in the extreme east as well.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-3
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•
FIGURE 7.2
SOILS LOCATION
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-4
jaw.
3 1
L
.
�� ^.••II '�1 �` •- e.om
1• V- •Of rS.. ;'j'.', r ` • r�w • 3 . .a Ala
1.!'
n_3lJ. fst!. -/ -.
a _
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•
FIGURE 73
SOIL BASED ENGINEERING RESTRICTIONS
•
•
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-5
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Soil capability and its companion topographic features has influenced the pattern of land use in
Fayetteville. Through streets and rail lines follow the stream valleys while roads that cross steep
grades tend to be short and discontinuous. The pattern established by early settlers of building
houses on the hills and farming the creek bottoms still prevails, with residential areas on the hills
and commercial development along the highways.
Future urban development is best suited in areas to the west and northeast where soil limitations
are the least restrictive. These are also the areas where current development and future market
activities are most active.
0
Class III
Soils
Slope
Category
AeC
Allegheny gravelly loam
(3-8% slopes)
a
AeC2
Allegheny gravelly loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
AIC2
Allen loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
ApC2
Apison loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
AsC2
Apison gravelly loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
BaC
Baxter cherty silt loam
(3-8% slopes)
a
CaC
Captina silt loam
(3-6% slopes)
a
CaC2
Captina silt loam, eroded
(3-6% slopes)
a
Cr
Cleora fine sandy loam
(0-3% slopes)
a
FaC2
Fayetteville fine sandy loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
JaC
Jay silt loam
(3-8% slopes)
a
Jo
Johnsburg silt loam
(0-2% slopes)
a
LkC2
Linker loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
LnC2
Linker gravelly loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
NaC
Nixa cherry silt loam,
(3-8% slopes)
a
PeC2
Pembroke silt loam, eroded
(3-6% slopes)
a
PgC2
Pembroke gravelly silt loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
PkC2
Pickwick gravelly loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
PsC2
Pickwick silt loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
Sa
Samba silt loam
(0-1% slopes)
a
SfC2
Savannah fine sandy loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
Sp
Summit complex, mounded
(0-1% slopes)
a
SsA
Summit silty clay
(0-1% slopes)
a
SsC2
Summit silty clay, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
ToA
Taloka silt loam
(0-1% slopes)
a
Class IV
Soils
AeD2
Allegheny gravelly loam, eroded
(8-12% slopes)
a
AgD
Allegheny stony loam
(8-12% slopes)
a
AID2
Allen loam, eroded
(8-12% slopes)
a
BaD
Baxter cherty silt loam
(8-12% slopes)
a
Ch
Cherokee silt loam
(0-2% slopes)
a
Ck
Cherokee complex, mounded
(0-1% slopes)
a
EnC
Enders gravelly loam
(3-8% slopes)
a
EnC2
Enders gravelly loam, eroded
(3-8% slopes)
a
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-6
[1
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• FaD2 Fayetteville fine sandy loam, eroded (8-12% slopes) a
GuC Guin cherty silt loam (3-8% slopes) a
HmC Hector-Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam (3-8% slopes) a
Js Johnsburg complex, mounded (0-1% slopes) a
Le Leaf silt loam (0.1% slopes) a
Lf Leaf complex, mounded (0 to 1% slopes) a
LnD Linker gravelly loam (8-12% slopes) a
Na!) Nixa cherry silt loam (8-12% slopes) a
PkD2 Pickwick gravelly loam, eroded (8-12% slopes) a
Sb Samba complex, mounded (0-1% slopes) a
SsD2 Summit silty clay, eroded (8-12% slopes) a
Ta Taloka complex, mounded (0-1%slopes) a
Class V Soils
Ec Elsah cobbly soils (0-3% slopes) a
Eg Elsah gravelly soils (0-3% slopes) a
Class VI Soils
AIE2 Allen loam, eroded (12-20% slopes) b
AnE Allen soils (8-20% slopes) Lb
BaE Baxter cherty silt loam (12-20% slopes) b
En!) Enders gravelly loam (8-12% slopes) a
EnD2 Enders gravelly loam, eroded (8-12% slopes) a
EoD Enders stony loam (3-12% slopes) a
FaE2 Fayetteville fine sandy loam, eroded (12-20a/o slopes) b
. HmD Hector-Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam (8-12% slopes) a
MoD Montevallo soils (3-12% slopes) a
StD2 Summit stony silty clay, eroded (3-12% slopes) a
Class VII Soils
AgF Allegheny stony loam (12-40a/o slopes) b,c,d
AhF Allen -Hector complex (20r30o/a slopes) c,d
AhG Allen -Hector complex (40-50a/o slopes) e
• AoF Allen stony loam (12-35% slopes) b,c,d
BaF Baxter cherty silt loam (2045% slopes) c,d,e
CIG Clarksville cherty silt loam (12-60a/o slopes) b -f
ErE Enders -Allegheny complex (8-20% slopes) Lb
ErF Enders -Allegheny complex (20-40% slopes) c -c
FeF Fayetteville stony fine sandy loam (12-35% slopes) b,c,d
FhF Fayetteville -Hector complex (20-40% slopes) c,d,e
HoF Hector-Mountainburg stony fine sandy loam (3-40% slopes) a -c
MoE Montevallo soils (12-25% slopes) b -d
Ro Rockland -
So Sogn rocky silt loam (3-12% slopes) a
StE2 Summit stony silty clay, eroded (12-25% slopes) be
Slope classifications
a = 0 - 12% slope d = 31.40% slope
b= 13 - 19% slope e = 41-50% slope
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-7
0
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
c = 20-30% slope f= 51% slope and greater
Class III
Capability Unit IIIe-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (CaC) Captina silt loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes; (CaC2)
Captina silt loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes, eroded; (JaC) Jay silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes; (SfC2) Savannah fine
sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded. They are moderately well -drained and well -drained soils on uplands and.
stream terraces. Slopes range from 3 to 8 percent. Erosion hazard is severe and permeability is slow.
Capability Unit IIIe-2 Soils in this Capability Unit include (AeC) Allegheny gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes;
(AeC2) Allegheny gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded; (AIC2) Allen loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded;
(PeC2) Pembroke silt loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes, eroded; (PgC2) Pembroke gravelly silt loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes, eroded; (PkC2) Pickwick gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded; (PsC2) Pickwick silt loam, 3 to 8
percent slopes, eroded. They are characterized by deep, well -drained soils on uplands and stream terraces. The slope
range is 3 to 8 percent.
Capability Unit IIIe-3 Soils in this Capability Unit include (BaC) Baxter cherty silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes.
Erosion hazard is severe and permeability moderate.
Capability Unit IIIe-4 Soils in this Capability Unit include (ApC2) Apison loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded;
(AsC2) Apison gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded; (FaC2) Fayetteville fine sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes, eroded; (LkC2) Linker loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes, eroded; (LnC2) Linker gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent
slopes, eroded.The slope range is 3 to 8 percent. Permeability is moderate and erosion hazard is severe.
I
Capability Unit he -5 Soils in this Capability Unit include (SsC2) Summit silty clay, 3 to 8 percent slopes,
eroded. This is a deep, moderately well -drained soil found on uplands. Shrink and swell potential is high.
Permeability is very slow due to high clay content. Erosion hazard is severe. •
Capability Unit IIIw-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (Sa) Samba silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes; (ToA)
Taloka silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes. The slope range is 0-1 percent. There are poorly drained soils on uplands and
stream terraces. Permeability is slow to very slow, run-off is slow to very slow, and wetness is a severe hazard.
Capability Unit IIIw-2 Soils in this Capability Unit include (Jo) Johnsburg silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes. This
is a deep, poorly drained soil on uplands and stream terraces. The slope range is 0-2 percent. Permeability is slow
and erosion potential only slight.
Capability Unit IIIw-3 Soils in this Capability Unit include (Cr) Cleora fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes.
The slope range is 0-3 percent. The soil is moderately permeable.
Capability Unit IIIw-4 Soils in this Capability Unit include (Sp) Summit complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes,
mounded; (SsA) Summit silty clay, 0 to I percent slopes. Most areas are level. Permeability is very slow because of
the high clay content. There soils shrink and crack when dry and swell when wet.
Capability Unit IIIs-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (NaC) Nixa cherty silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes. This
is a deep moderately well -drained upland soil. Permeability is very slow. Run-off is medium.
Class IV
Capability Unit IVe-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (AeD2) Allegheny gravelly loam, 8 to 12 percent
slopes, eroded; (AID2) Allen loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded; (FaD2) Fayetteville fine sandy loam, 8 to 12
percent slopes, eroded; (LnD) Linker gravelly loam, 8 to. 12 percent slopes; (PkD2) Pickwick gravelly loam, 8 to 12
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-8
•
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
•• percent slopes, eroded. They are deep, well -drained soils on slopes ranging between 8 to 12 percent Erosion hazard
is extremely severe and permeability quite slow.
Capability Unit IVe-2 Soils in this Capability Unit include (BaD) Baxter cherry silt loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes.
This is a deep, well -drained soil found on uplands. Permeability is moderate and erosion potential very severe.
Capability Unit IVe-3 Soils in this Capability Unit include (AgD) Allegheny stony loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes.
Permeability is moderate. Run-off can be rapid and erosion severity is high.
Capability Unit IVe-4 Soils in this Capability Unit include (HmC) Hector-Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy loam,
3 to 8 percent slopes. These are shallow, well -drained soils ranging in slope from 3 to 8 percent Permeability is
rapid and erosion hazard very severe.
Capability Unit IVe-5 Soils in this Capability Unit include (AIE2) Allen loam, 12 to 20 percent, eroded; (AnE)
Allen soils, 8 to 20 percent slopes; (FaE2) Fayetteville fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes, eroded. Soils in
this Capability Unit include (EnC) Enders gravelly loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes; (EnC2) Enders gravelly loam, 3 to 8
percent slopes, eroded. These soils are deep, moderately drained, gravelly soils on uplands. The slopes range from 3
to 8 percent. Permeability is slow due to plastic clay subsoil which resists percolation of water. Erosion hazard is
severe with these soils.
Capability Unit IVe-6 Soils in this Capability Unit include (SsD2) Summit silty clay, 8 to 12 percent slopes,
eroded. Erosion hazard is very severe on these soils.
Capability Unit IVw-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (Ch) Cherokee silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes; (Ck)
. Cherokee complex, 0 to I percent slopes, mounded; (is) Johnsburg complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, mounded; (Le)
Leaf silt loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes; (Lf) Leaf complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, mounded; (Sb) Samba complex, 0 to
I percent slopes, mounded; (Ta) Taloka complex, 0 to 1 percent slopes, mounded. There are poorly drained and
somewhat poorly drained soils on uplands and stream terraces. Permeability is slow and erosion hazard high.
Capability Unit IVs -1 Soils in this Capability Unit include (NaD) Nixa cherry silt loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes.
This is a deep, moderately well -drained soil. Permeability is slow due to the fragipan, which restricts water and root
movement
Capability Unit IVs -2 Soils in this Capability Unit include (GuC) Guin cherty loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes. It is a
well -drained soil on alluvial fans and foot slopes. Permeability is fairly rapid and runoff slow.
Class V
Capability Unit Vw-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (Ec) Elsah cobbly soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes; (Eg)
Elsah gravelly soils, 0 to 3 percent slopes. There are deep, somewhat excessively drained to excessively drained
soils. Permeability is fairly rapid. Run-off is slow, however, a severe overflow hazard is the major limitation.
Class VI
Capability Unit VIe-1 Soils in this Capability Unit include (AIE2) Allen loam, 12 to 20 percent, eroded; (AnE)
Allen soils, 8 to 20 percent slopes; (FaE2) Fayetteville fine sandy loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes, eroded. There are
deep, well -drained soils on uplands slope range is 8 to 12 percent. Erosion hazard is severe and permeability
moderate.
Capability Unit VIe-2 Soils in this Capability Unit include (BaE) Baxter cherry silt loam, 12 to 20 percent slopes.
This is a deep, well -drained soil. Permeability is moderate; run-off is fairly rapid while erosion hazard is severe.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-9
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Capability Unit VIe-3 Soils in this Capability Unit include (HmD) Hector-Mountainburg gravelly fine sandy •
loams, 8 to 12 percent slopes; (MoD) Montevallo soils, 3 to 12 percent slopes. This unit consists primarily of the
soils of the Hector-Mountainburg and Montevallo series. There are shallow, gravelly and stony, well -drained to
excessively drained soils on uplands. Slopes range from 3 to 12 percent. Permeability is moderate to rapid, erosion
hazard is severe.
Capability Unit VIe-4 Soils in this Capability Unit include (EnD) Enders gravelly loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes;
(EnD2) Enders gravelly loam, 8 to 12 percent slopes, eroded; (StD2) Summit stony silty clay, 3 to 12 percent slopes,
eroded. This unit consists entirely of soils of the Enders series. These are deep, moderately well -drained gravelly
soils on uplands. Due to plastic clay subsoil, permeability is very slow, run-off is rapid and erosion hazard severe.
Capability Unit VIs-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (EoD) Enders stony loam, 3 to 12 percent slopes;
(StD2) Summit stony silty clay, 3 to 12 percent slopes, eroded. These are deep, moderately well -drained, stony soils
in uplands. Slopes range from 3 to 12 percent. Permeability is very slow due to clay subsoil.
Class VII
Capability Unit Vlle-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (AgF) Allegheny stony loam, 12 to 40 percent slopes;
(AhF) Allen -Hector complex 20 to 40 percent slopes; (AhG) Allen -Hector complex, 40 to 50 percent slopes; (AoF)
Allen stony loam, 12 to 35 percent slopes; (ErE) Enders -Allegheny complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes; (ErF)
Enders -Allegheny complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes; (FeF) Fayetteville stony fine sandy loam, 12 to 35 percent
slopes; (FhF) Fayetteville -Hector complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes. They are deep, well -drained stony soils on
uplands. Slopes range from 8 to 55 percent. Permeability is moderate. Run-off is fairly rapid and erosion hazard,
severe.
Capability Unit Vile -2 Soils in this Capability Unit include (BaF) Baxter cherry silt loam, 20 to 45 percent slopes. •
This is a deep, well -drained soil on uplands. Permeability is only moderate and the erodibility of the soil is very
severe.
Capability Unit Vlls-I Soils in this Capability Unit include (CIG) Clarksville cherty silt loam, 12 to 60 percent
slopes. This is an excessively drained soil on uplands. Permeability is rapid. It is 50 to 90 percent chert which limits
it water capacity.
Capability Unit VIIs-2 There are shallow, well -drained to somewhat excessively drained stony soils on uplands.
slopes range from 3 to 55 percent. Depth to bedrock is 8 to 20 inches and water capacity is low due to shallowness
and stoniness. Permeability is moderate to rapid. Soils in this Capability Unit include.
(AhF) Allen -Hector complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes; (AhG) Allen -Hector complex, 40 to 50 percent slopes;
(FhF) Fayetteville -Hector complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes; (HoF) Hector-Mountainburg stony fine sand loam, 3 to
40 percent slopes; (MoE) Montevallo soils, 12 to 25 percent slopes. There are shallow, well -drained to somewhat
excessively drained stony soils on uplands. Slopes range from 3 to 55 percent. Depth to bedrock is 8 to 20 inches
and water capacity is low due to shallowness and stoniness. Permeability is moderate to rapid.
Capability Unit VIIs-3 Soils in this Capability Unit include (Ro) Rock land; Sogn rocky silt loam, 3 to 12 percent
slopes. Both are shallow and excessively drained with slopes ranging from 3 to 60 percent Permeability is moderate
to rapid yet water capacity is low due to shallowness and rockiness.
Capability Unit VIIs-4 Soils in this Capability Unit include (ErE) Enders -Allegheny complex, 8 to 20 percent
slopes; (ErF) Enders- Allegheny complex, 20 to 40 percent slopes; (StE2) Summit stony silty clay, 12 to 25 percent
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-10
•
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
slopes, eroded. There arc deep, moderately well -drained, stony soils on uplands. Slopes range from 8 to 40 percent.
Permeability is slow due to clay sub -soil. Run-off can be extremely rapid.
Source: Soil Survey, Washington County, Arkansas
USDA, Soil Conservation Service, March 1969
7.3 Slope
Slope, or gradient, is a critical factor in determining a soil's suitability for supporting
development. The development of severe slopes involving soils not capable of providing
foundation support can result in extensive cutting and filling in an effort to stabilize them. When
compounded by the removal of existing vegetation, excavation and fill of soil can result in severe
erosion and run-off, slumping and shearing. Use of more severe slopes for development is costly,
unsafe and best avoided. .
In Fayetteville, areas of more severe slope are also characterized by soils less suitable for
development. Shallower depth to bedrock conditions compound problems in these areas. There
are several identified beds of cherty limestone, acid sandstone, siltstone and shale that have
shown some faulting and folding at steeper locations.
• Of the 59,249 acres within the City and its Planning Area, some 15 percent, or 8,900 acres, have
slopes of 15 percent or greater. These slopes remain largely unused because they are too severe
for most types of development.
The Slope Analysis Map identifies three major areas where severe slopes are predominant:
• Southwest quadrant of the Planning Area paralleling both sides of the route for U.S. 71.
Almost the entire quadrant is restricted. Some of the highest elevations in the Planning
• Area are found here.
Southeast extreme of the Planning Area. The area is blocked by a solid line of severe
slopes. Pockets are found around the Country Club.
Northeast quadrant of the Planning Area paralleling and to the east of Old Wire Road.
The steeper slopes are generally confined to a narrow line that terminates on the southern
end with Mount Sequoyah.
Generally as one goes north and west of Fayetteville the terrain is both more level and lower in
elevation. It is mainly to the west that the City should direct new growth. Conversely, the City
should discourage development from the more severe areas to the south and east as identified on
the Slope Analysis Map. Slopes that are 18 percent and greater generally should be kept free of
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-11
• 0
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
development. Some passive recreation and low density residential may be permitted on slopes •
under 28 percent. As slope is reduced, more dense/intense uses are appropriate. The most
intensive uses (i.e. commercial and industrial) should be confined to areas where slopes are
generally eight percent or less.
7.4 Watershed System
The urban area is dissected by two major drainage basins. The White River provides drainage
for the area to the south and southeast and is periodically subjected to storm flow from the
Boston Mountains. The second principal drainage course is the Illinois River. This drainage
basin covers approximately 30 percent of the western and northern portions of the urban area.
The natural drainage system consists of many smaller streams in a dendritic pattern along the
upper reaches of the watersheds. All of these streams eventually flow into the White or Illinois
Rivers. Tributaries in the vicinity of the city contribute little run-off except during and
immediately following periods of rainfall. The sheet run-off that is more characteristic of areas to
the north and west is intermittent depending on the seasonal variations in intensity and duration
of rainfall.
7.5 Surface Drainage .
Surface water resulting from storms is a major problem in the built-up area of Fayetteville.
Concrete and asphalt in the older parts of the City in particular do not have good permeability.
Steep slopes in the northeast, east and southwest are associated with rapid run-off from storms,
causing surface water build-up in low lying areas where permeability is notably poor and the
city's storm drainage system is limited. The lack of control combined with the intense urban
development creates flooding hazards during major storms.
7.6 Flooding
At the request of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers conducted a study of the flood hazards posed by the White River and
its tributaries. The findings of this study resulted in a determination of the boundaries, depths and
elevations of the White River 100 year floodplain limits. As determined by the Corps of
Engineers, these limits define the areas which would be flooded in the event of an intermediate
regional flood (100 year) and standard project flood (200 year to 500 year).
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-12
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• An intermediate regional flood is defined as the largest flood that would probably occur on the
order of once every 100 years. The peak discharge used for determining the 100 year floodplain
limit is 48,000 cfs (cubic feet/second). The standard flood is defined by the Corps of Engineers
as a major flood that can be expected to occur from the most severe combination of meteorologic
and hydrologic conditions reasonably characteristic of the geographic region. Although the
standard project flood is not assigned a recurrence interval, it is generally considered to
approximate a 200 year to 500 year frequency flood.
The Floodway Map indicates two major areas of flooding:
• West Fork of White River along the southern city limits. The floodway is fairly confined
until it becomes more widespread near the Industrial Park.
• Scull and Mud Creeks through the northern portions of the city. The floodway is fairly
confined until the confluence of the two streams near the Northwest Arkansas Mall. Both
sides of Scull Creek are moderately developed.
In order to
protect floodways
and
keep them clear of development,
the City should reserve
floodways
in developing areas
as
drainage easements. These areas
may be developed as parks.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-13
0 r
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
FIGURE 7.4
SLOPE ANALYSIS
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-14
L�
r1
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• 7.7 Groundwater
The groundwater level in Fayetteville is approximately 80-200 feet below the ground surface,
with some areas as deep as 300 feet below surface level. Groundwater supply is generally
dependable and of good quality; however, water is moderately hard and highIn iron in some
places. There are few, if any, ground wells within the city limits; however, there are numerous
such wells in the Planning Area.
7.8 Water Quality
Apart from moderately heavy concentrations of iron, water quality is generally good. From
relatively high water quality at the upper end of the White River and Illinois River watersheds,
the quality decreases progressively downstream. Major sources of pollutants include agricultural
run-off, livestock wastes and wastewater treatment plant discharges.
Treatment procedures include the use of lime and aluminum sulfate. The use of these chemicals
is followed by a process of coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, chlorination and the use of
activated carbon for taste and odor control. Fluoridation was discontinued in December 1991;
however fluoridation will resume after constructing new fluoridation equipment.
•
7.9 Historical Resources
RELATIONSHIP TO COMMUNITY. No analysis of Fayetteville would be complete without
due recognition and an illustrative representation of its rich and diversified historic resources.
Numerous historic homesites, buildings and structures provide both architectural and cultural
reminders of the historical framework that has contributed to the character of present day
Fayetteville.
Fayetteville's citizens have successfully integrated many of the City's historically significant
structures into functionally viable uses for present day residential and commercial business
activity. This has been accomplished through revitalization, restoration and renovation efforts as
well as a community wide commitment to the preservation of Fayetteville's historical past.
Downtown Fayetteville, centered around the square, is a striking example of the community's
commitment to the integration of its historical past with the social and economic dynamics of its
present.
Traditionally, city government has taken a laissez faire approach to preservation, leaving such
efforts to private initiatives. For example, the Old Post Office, Eason Building and Lewis
Hardware Store - all fundamental elements of the downtown square - were privately restored.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-15
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Yet in the light of present day economics and subsequent development pressures, areas of •
historical significance require more than recognition and commitment: Fayetteville needs a local
preservation ordinance and land use policies to guide, control and protect the future of its
historical past.
The City of Fayetteville took its first step toward a proactive stance on preservation in March of
1979, when the Board of Directors created the Fayetteville Historic District Commission and
endowed it with all the authority allowed under State Act 484. Lacking leadership and direction,
the Commission languished for over a decade. In 1989 and 1990 the City hired its first
professional planners, who began to work closely with the Commission. After a goals setting
workshop in the fall of 1990, the Commission drafted the following Mission statement:
"We believe that a dynamic perspective of history is fundamental to our community's continued
evolution and growth and that the present community must actively affirm the significance of its
past for future generations. Our mission is to identify, preserve and protect those buildings, sites,
places, artifacts, and districts which are of historic importance and interest to the Community."
HISTORIC RESOURCES. Numerous homesites and structures plus two districts have
qualified for listing on the National Register of Historic Places beginning in 1970. Designation to
the National Register is an honorary status. On the other hand, no property voluntarily placed on
the Fayetteville Register of Historic Places could be significantly altered or demolished without
approval of the Historic District Commission. The Commission has identified the two National
Register Districts - Washington -Willow and Mt. Nord.
Structures listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Campus -"Old Main". The University Hall
building was built from 1872-74 and modeled after the main building of the University of
Illinois. The building itself is a demonstration of architectural ingenuity and
perseverance. At the time of construction, there was no railroad within 150 miles of
Fayetteville; thus, bricks were made on the campus. Iron and glass were transported via
the Arkansas River and hauled over mountains by teams of ox. Lumber and additional
building stone came from within the surrounding area. After an extensive renovation,
Old Main was rededicated in September 1991. "Old Main" was listed in the National
Register in 1970.
Graduates of the University have their names imprinted in concrete along "Senior Walk"
beginning from the door of Old Main and extending across the campus. This tradition
began in 1876 and continues today.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-16
I. 0
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• Chi Omega Sorority was founded on the campus in 1895. In 1930, the National Chi
Omega Foundation erected the Chi Omega Theater as a memorial to the sorority's
founding. A bronze plaque on the foundation of the theater's south pylon pays tribute to
the University.
Camall Hall is located at the northeast comer of campus at Arkansas Avenue and Maple
Street. Constructed in 1895 by Charles L. Thompson, as the first women's dorm, the
building was named after Professor Ella Camall. The structure is built of brick with a
native stone foundation. Thompson is the architect who built the Washington County
Courthouse.
Headquarters House - 118 E. Dickson. Over 100 years ago, Jonas M. Tebbetts, a,
Fayetteville lawyer built what is often referred to as the "most beautiful antebellum house
in Arkansas." The house served as the headquarters of the union commander during the
Battle of Fayetteville on April 18, 1863. Across the street (comer of College Avenue and
Dickson Street) is a bronze marker giving the date of the battle and names of the
opposing commanders, Confederate W.L. Cabell and Union Colonel M. Larne Harrison.
The site presently houses the Washington County Historical Society. The Headquarters
House has been on the National Register since 1971.
• Ridge House - Northeast comer of Center and Locust. Constructed in 1854, the Ridge
• House is Fayetteville's oldest home site on record. The original log structure was built by
John Ridge, a Cherokee leader instrumental in bringing the Cherokee to the southwest.
Original logs are encased in the two-story clapboard structure. The Ridge House is
presently maintained by the Washington County Historical Society and has been listed on
National Register since 1972.
Walker -Stone House - West Mountain and 207 West Center Street. The Walker -Stone
house is two separate brick structures constructed by Judge David Walker, Supreme
Court Judge and Chairman of Arkansas Secession Convention. The first home. was built
on East Mountain and provides a commanding view of Fayetteville. The second home
(Center Street) once housed the internationally acclaimed architect, Edward Durrell
Stone. The later building has been restored for professional use by the law firm of
Kincaid, Home & Trumbo. The Walker -Stone House obtained National Register status
in 1970.
Gregg House - Southwest comer of Lafayette and Gregg. This house was constructed in
1871 by Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Lafayette Gregg and still functions as a private
residence. Justice Lafayette Gregg was responsible for preparation of the legislative bill
that located the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville and supervision of "Old Main's"
construction. In 1974 the Gregg house was approved for National Register status.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-17
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Walker Kneer Williams House - Kneer Road. Located on the south slope of Mt. •
Sequoyah. Listed on the National Register as of 1975. The structure is a T-shaped brick
Georgian structure with Victorian trim constructed between 1870-1880 of brick, stone,
and wood. Other than the enclosing of the south gallery and the addition of a back stair,
the structure is original and in excellent condition. Built by W. Z. Marges, the red brick
was locally produced from the same clay deposits as the Gregg home.
Washington County Courthouse - Located on North College Avenue (State Highway
471) at the east end of Center Street, this building has been the subject of numerous
restoration efforts. It has recently been identified as a historic landmark. (Exact date of
construction unknown). The County courthouse has been on the National Register since
1972.
• Washington County Jail -Located on North College (U.S. 71) at the east end of
Mountain Street (Exact date of construction unknown). The County jail has been on the
National Register since 1978.
• Old Post Office - The Old Post Office is located in the center of Fayetteville Square.
This building is listed on the National Register and has been restored to serve as
restaurant and private club. Nomination of the old Post Office for listing on the Register
was approved in 1974.
• Waters, Pierce Oil Company Building - West Street north of Dickson. Designated and •
built by Charles L. Thompson in 1912 as a warehouse for the oil company. The brick
structure has been vacant since 1979 and is in a ruinous state.
• Frisco Depot - 550 W. Dickson. Erected in 1887 after the first station burned. The
original building was remodeled and enlarged in 1925. The depot was transformed with a
Spanish influence. It is the only vintage depot standing on the former Frisco line between
Missouri and Van Buren. The last regular passenger train passed through Fayetteville on
September 18, 1965. Today the building is vacant.
Wade Heverwagen House - 338 Washington Avenue. Built in 1873 with an addition in
the 1880's wooden 2 -story Y -plan house in an early Virginia style. Still occupied and in
good shape.
Hemingway House and Barn -Two story wood frame house covered in clapboards and
shingles, rests on short stone piers. Built in 1907 for attorney Wilson Elwin Hemingway.
Charles L. Thompson designed the house and barn. It is now the residence of the original
owners' granddaughter. It was designed as a summer dwelling of Dutch Colonial
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-18
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• influence which is in contrast to Thompson's usual strong classical influence within the
Colonial Revival styles.
Wilson, Pittman, Campbell -Gregory House - 405 East Dickson. The original
two-story brick structure was built in 1866 with an addition in 1913. Built by J. H.
Wilson but purchased before completion by James Pittman, a Confederate Colonel during
the Civil War. The exterior has had a few cosmetic alterations but the interior of the
house is remarkably unaltered.
• Magnolia Filling Station - 429 W. LaFayette. Built by Earl Byrd in 1925 it is the only
known surviving structure of the Magnolia Company. It is an outstanding example of the
drive-in type structure.
• Troy Gordon House -9 East Township Road. Constructed in 1851 in the Greek Revival
style. The structure has been recycled and is now used for office space. This is one of the
few antebellum houses remaining in the state.
• Jackson House - Built in 1872. Bricks made on property.
• Routh -Bailey House - Old Wire Road. Constructed in 1848 entirely by slaves. The 20
• slaves were owned by Benjamin Routh. They dug and burned clay and limestone on the
farm to make bricks and mortar to build the brick structure.
• Cuisinger Building - Built in 1886 by William Crenshaw, an early Fayetteville hardware
merchant. The brick building is typical of late 19th century commercial style buildings.
The building was refurbished retaining all the architectural flavor of the interior including
the pressed tin ceilings. It currently houses a law firm.
• Villa Rosa - 617 W. LaFayette. The Villa Rosa is a two-story frame residence with a
beige brick facing built in the Italian Renaissance style in 1932. Named for Rosa
Marinoni, a former Arkansas poet laureate and an important figure in the state's cultural
history. Rosa designed the home herself, after her father's summer home, Villa Rosa, in
Bologna.
Johnson Barn - Cato Springs Road north of Round Top Mountain. A 1933 two-story,
balloon frame, gambrel roof agricultural building. It is supported by a fieldstone
foundation, sheathed in wood weatherboard siding, and constructed with solid walnut
columns on the first floor and long, unspliced truss members that frame the gambrel roof.
Designed with a side drive plan by Ben F. Johnson, M, a Harvard University landscape
architect graduate, after an extensive study of Northwest Arkansas barn types. He took
the best design features and incorporated them into an "ideal" barn structure.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-19
0
• EXISTING CONDITIONS •
Sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
National Cemetery - The National Cemetery is the burial site of over 1,600 U.S. soldiers
who fought in both World War I, World War II and Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf.
The cemetery is maintained by the U.S. Government and is located at the south end of
Government Avenue.
Arkansas College - On College Avenue where the First Christian Church now stands
was the site of the Arkansas College, the first chartered college to grant Bachelor degrees
(1860-1862). In 1928 when Fayetteville celebrated its centennial birthday, this site
became an historical marker and is recognized by the placement of a bronze plaque on the
front of the church. The plaque commemorates the old Arkansas College which was
destroyed by fire during the Civil War.
•
Fayetteville Female Seminary - The Female Seminary, built in 1839 was located on
Center Street, one block west of Fayetteville Square. It was begun as a school for Indian
girls from the Cherokee Nation and became widely renowned as being the best school for
girls in the southwest. The seminary was destroyed by fire during the Civil War and is
commemorated now by a bronze plaque on a stone pillar on West Mountain Street. This
historical marker was sponsored by the Parent Teacher Association of Fayetteville in
1928 when Fayetteville was celebrating its centennial birthday.
Confederate Cemetery - Located at the east end of Rock Street, this cemetery is the •
burial grounds for Confederate Soldiers from Texas, Missouri, Louisiana and Arkansas.
Districts listed on the National Register of Historic Places. There are presently three National
Register Historic Districts within the City of Fayetteville. The largest district,
Washington -Willow, lies mostly within the Masonic Addition, the first addition to the original
town. Washington -Willow consists of 105 primary structures sited along two north -south streets
and five traversing east -west streets. The district encompasses approximately 37 acres. Nineteen
of the buildings possess special significance. Twenty-five do not contribute to the primary
character of the district. With the exception of a church, all the buildings are residential.
Forty-six of the structures were built between 1890 and 1910. This district is believed to contain
the highest concentration of significant structures worthy of preservation in Fayetteville.
Architectural styles within the district range from Greek Revival to ranch style and include
various Victorian themes, Classical Revival, bungalow, modem workers cottages and 20th
Century period homes.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-20
•
S EXISTING CONDITIONS •
• The Washington -Willow District is renowned for its attractive and prestigious character. The
area has never really confronted "hard times". Thus, buildings have been well maintained even
during periods of growth and change.
It is believed that the district's cohesiveness stems from visible boundaries, its residential
character, well maintained homes, numerous large mature trees lining the streets, and a large
concentration of buildings possessing architectural merit.
Although the archaeological potential of this district has not been filly explored, there has been
some productive excavation (salvage archeology) behind the Headquarters House revealing
evidence of early Indian and white settlers. It is suspected that further archaeological remains
exist and that the area is a significant archaeological resource.
The second historic district is Mt. Nord. The district consists of one distinctive block in
Fayetteville situated on a hilltop to the north of the City's historic downtown commercial square.
Five residential structures of wood frame and masonry construction built between 1900 and 1925
comprise the Mount Nord Historic District. Each structure contributes to the integrity of the
district by virtue of its architectural character, its natural and physical setting and its visual
association.
• This district was once the City's most prestigious residential area and consequently attracted
some of Fayetteville's most prominent and successful citizens. The landscape, atop one of
Fayetteville's many rolling hills, reinforces the area's strong physical definition. Although a less
eminent residential neighborhood than when constructed, the district is now a focal point for a
larger residential area that emerged in the 1920's and 1930's. This residential eminence is what
attributes to the successful retainment of the district's original integrity.
The Wilson Park Historic District, located just to the north of Fayetteville's historic commercial
downtown, extends roughly between College Avenue on the east, Wilson avenue on the West,
Maple Street on the South and Louise Street on the north. Exclusively residential in nature, the
district contains a total of seventy buildings spread over roughly twelve blocks. The entire
district is characterized by hilly, tree -covered lots connected by relatively narrow streets, all of
which lend the Wilson Park Historic District an unspoiled, rustic ambience.
The initial development of the district occurred in the early part of the century during a boom
period for Fayetteville. By 1910 the population had reached 5,000 and Fayetteville Lumber and
Cement, Hill City Lumber and Red Star Spoke Factory were doing record business. The tons of
produce and grain leaving Fayetteville yearly kept three train lines running. Canning factories
and cold storage companies were built to package the produce for shipping. Many permanent
homes were established during this period within the district
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
7-21
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
8 CIRCULATION
City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 1995
In order for Fayetteville to function and to grow in an orderly manner, people and goods must
move efficiently in and through the area. Transportation systems in Fayetteville include streets
and highways, public transportation, aviation, rail, and trails. As the costs and benefits of
transportation facilities and services frequently extend beyond local government jurisdiction as a
criteria for state and federal assistance, transportation planning and decision -making are
coordinated within the urbanized area by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning
Commission (NWARPC) with assistance from the City of Fayetteville and the State of Arkansas.
One of the critical elements of a land use plan is a consideration in terms of a plan for
transportation. Currently, the City utilizes a Master Street Plan and has recently completed
preliminary studies on a Trailways feasibility plan. These plans will be updated and integrated
into the General Plan.
8.1 Access into Fayetteville
Primary vehicular access to Fayetteville is provided by state and federal highways which link this
community to others. Fayetteville is accessed by two U.S. Highways and via several State
Highways.
Service from the north and south is provided by U.S. Highway 71 which ultimately connects to
Interstate 44 at Joplin, Missouri and Interstate 40 at Alma/Ft. Smith, Arkansas. This access was
improved by construction of a Fayetteville bypass, the J.W. Fulbright Expressway, completed to
its present four lane width in 1982. Highway 71B (Old Highway 71) is an alternate route for
traffic to and through Fayetteville and Springdale city centers. The Fulbright Expressway
provides a bypass around Fayetteville to the west. To the east, State Highway 265 provides a
similar function; however, due to its uncontrolled access, the efficiency of this route is not
comparable to the Fulbright Expressway.
Vehicular access from the east is provided by State Highway 45, entering the city approximately
at its midpoint and also from State Highway 16 entering the city to the south. Both of these
routes intersect and connect with State Highway 265 (Crossover Road). From the west, access is
provided by State Highway 16 at approximately the city midpoint and U. S. Highway 62 to the
south. Both of these routes intersect and connect with the Fulbright Expressway, and U.S.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-1
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Highway 62 also extends east (as State Highway 180) to intersect with Highway 71B. •
8.2 Traffic Circulation Within Fayetteville
Privately owned motor vehicles represent the primary means of transportation within
Fayetteville. In 1980, a total of 67,936 vehicles were registered with Washington County. By
1990, this figure had grown to 79,002 vehicles. Registrations of motor vehicles is significant,
because when compared to population increases for the same area and time period, it is apparent
that the growth in registrations within Washington County (16%) is at a rate faster than that of
population growth (12.9%). Another significant factor important to planning is that in 1970 the
ratio of cars to people was 1:2. By 1990, this ratio had increased to 1:1.4. More cars on city
streets increase congestion, noise and accidents, contribute to pollution and create expenses for
the city in terms of street maintenance and traffic law enforcement. Fayetteville, in conjunction
with the University and the State, will need to make decisions related to additional transportation
facilities to provide adequately for traffic circulation and to offer choices of other systems which
may slow or reverse the trend of increasing numbers of privately owned vehicles.
As U.S. Highway 71B (North College Avenue) is the only continuous route through the city, it
necessarily serves as the major route for traffic circulation and residential/business access. At the
city center, Highway 71B carries traffic loads equal to the Fulbright Expressway with a 1992
average daily traffic (ADT) count of 22,000. For the projection period, the Expressway is .
expected to carry greater loads than Highway 71B with ADTs of 30,360 and 28,380, respectively.
Other key north/south routes are State Highway 265 and Gregg Avenue. Neither Highway 265
nor Gregg Avenue are continuous for the length of the city, and they do not connect to
continuous east/west streets, as there presently are none. State Highway 112 also provides
north/south circulation within Fayetteville; however, it functions primarily to provide access to
the University from the north and west.
Due to better functioning north/south routes for traffic circulation there are fewer key north/south
traffic circulation routes than east/west routes. The more numerous east/west routes have been
influenced by the same ridge lines which divide Fayetteville into the two (White/Illinois River)
watersheds. As the ridge traverses Fayetteville at its center (in terms of development density),
circulation routes are more numerous and less direct. An additional factor influencing traffic
circulation is the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad line, which bisects the city in a north/south
direction. Crossings of the line are expensive and present the potential for dangerous situations.
These two factors have resulted in a circuitous street pattern in the east/west direction. East/west
routes near Fayetteville's center include Poplar Street, Sycamore Street, North Street (connects to
Wedington Road), Maple Street and Dickson Street.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-2
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Other key east/west routes are Joyce Boulevard which is rapidly developing and promises to be a
major east/west route. Joyce Boulevard currently connects State Highway 265 and U. S.
Highway 71B. In the future, Joyce Boulevard will connect to Gregg Avenue. State Highway 45
(Mission Boulevard) which connects to U. S. Highway 71B is also a key east/west route. As
Highway 45 (Mission Boulevard and Lafayette Street) enters the developed portions of the city it
is constrained by both topography and development, even traversing the Washington Willow
historic District. Highway 16E (Huntsville Road) provides the most nearly continuous east/west
route which exists in Fayetteville. Like Highway 45 (Mission Boulevard), it experiences
topographical and developmental constraints as it enters the developed city. Potential exists for
connecting State Highway 16 to U. S. Highway 62 via Huntsville Road. A similar potential
exists to connect Highway 45 (Mission Boulevard) to State Highway 112S/16W (Wedington
Road) via North Street.
8.3 Access to the University
The University of Arkansas student population of approximately 15,000 accounts for one third of
the 1995 population of the City of Fayetteville and will account for approximately one quarter of
the 2010 population. Due to the age of the student population (all are of legal driving age) and
. the fact that the University is the major employer within Fayetteville, the University is a major
traffic generator and greatly affects circulation patterns.
Existing access to the University is provided by the Fulbright Expressway and then via State
Highway 112 Spur (Wedington Road) or State Highway 180 (W. 6th Street). After exiting to
Wedington Road (east/west route), State Highway 112 (Garland Avenue - north/south route)
provides entrance to the University. The 1992 average daily traffic at the entrance to the
University on Garland was 14,000 and this figure is expected to increase to 15,960 by 2010. The
majority of the University traffic (46%) approaches the campus from the north.
To the south, after exiting to W. 6th Street (east/west route), State Highway 112 (Razorback
Road - north/south route) provides entrance to the University. When compared to the route
described above, the Highway 180/Razorback Road route provides the most direct path. The
1992 average daily traffic count for this route was 11,000 vehicles projected to increase to 12,540
by 2010.
Access to the University may also be gained from Highway 71B (North College Avenue) via
Dickson Street. As these two streets were original to the city, and traffic patterns are difficult to.
change once established, this route continues to be the traditional entrance to the campus and is
heavily traveled. Average daily traffic counts indicate that approximately 9,500 cars used this
route daily in 1992. This traffic count is expected to increase to 11,305 by the year 2010.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-3
0 i
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
The three routes described above are among the heaviest traveled within the city. Several
improvements are already programmed which will provide for future access needs of the
University. In addition, the. University recently undertook a study to determine the best means of
providing circulation within its boundaries.
The key improvement planned by the State of Arkansas is a direct access from the new four lane
U. S. Highway 71 (planned for completion in 1999) via State Highway 265 (Cato Springs Road)
and an extension of the current State Highway 112 (Razorback Road). These improvements have
been ranked in the 1993-1995 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) and are rated as the
number three priority for the planning area, the Fayetteville -Springdale -Rogers MSA. With
improvements to bring Razorback Road to four lanes from this exit to Maple Street, this route
will provide relief to existing traffic congestion, especially during football and basketball
seasons, and has the potential to become the most heavily travelled route to the University. The
City and the State Highway and Transportation Department are currently designing this entryway
and acquiring right-of-way along State Highway 180 (W. 6th Street). -
A second street improvement, also a state assisted project, the North Street widening from Gregg
Avenue to State Highway 112 (Garland Avenue) has recently been completed. As North Street is
consistently utilized as a University access from Highway 71B (North College Avenue) to
Highway 112 (Garland Avenue) from areas extending as far north as Springdale, widening of the
roadway will improve traffic flow and access to the University.
In order to better address circulation on campus, the University recently completed a traffic study
(December, 1992). To reduce conflict between pedestrian and vehicular traffic, the study
recommended installation of a traffic signal at Dickson Street and Ozark Avenue to favor
pedestrian traffic during peak pedestrian crossing times. The study also recommended
modification of the traffic signal at North Street and Highway 112 (Garland Avenue) to provide a
'westbound left turn arrow; installation of a traffic signal at Maple Street and West Avenue;
provision of two turning lanes at Meadow Street and Razorback Road; and striping of two
southbound turning lanes at Highway 180 (W. 6th Street) and Highway 112 (Razorback Road).
The study concluded that restricting automobile traffic on campus streets should be the ultimate
objective of the University.
8.4 System Capacity
In order to assess level of service of City streets, traffic counts are made and average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes are calculated. Fayetteville completed an analysis of the street system using the
consulting firm of DeShazo, Starek, and Tang. The detailed results of this analysis are contained
in a two volume report. General conclusions reached by the report are summarized below.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-4
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
•
below.
For most of the street system in Fayetteville, the existing street classification system indicated
that the city could accommodate future anticipated growth in accordance with the layout of the
current Master Street Plan, assuming that planned improvements (fully described in the
Transportation Improvement Plan and the Capital Improvement Program) are implemented.
Areas of concern are those streets which in 1992 were exceeding a volume to capacity level of
.89 (level of service E —unstable operation). These streets included portions of U.S.71 B (North
College Avenue), Gregg Avenue, Township Street, Old Wire Road, State Highway 45 (Mission
Boulevard), State Highway 112 (Garland Avenue), State Highway 112S/16W (Wedington Road),
North Street, Leverett Avenue, Maple Street, Dickson Street, and State Highway 16E (Huntsville
Road). Using projected ADTs for 2010, the volume/capacity analysis was repeated showing
increased congestion on all of the streets experiencing congestion in 1992, and adding the
following segments: Rolling Hills Drive and Happy Hollow Road.
8.5 Public Transportation
• Fayetteville is served by three public transportation systems. Razorback Transit is a partially
federally funded system operated by the University of Arkansas in a proactive effort to reduce
traffic congestion and parking problems on the University campus. Their service is free to the
public as well as the students of the University. Razorback Transit operates seven bus routes
serving the University, the Fayetteville Square, shopping malls, and medical and other service
areas.
Ozark Public Transit, located in Springdale, Arkansas, serves the Fayetteville/ Springdale MSA;
however it is a limited demand service rather than route service like Razorback Transit System.
Ozark Public Transit currently operates 22 vehicles, utilizing federal funds for urbanized area
transportation of disadvantaged persons. The system is operated in conjunction with local human
service agencies, private operators, and local governments.
The Fayetteville Downtown Trolley provides free transportation along a limited route linking the
downtown square to the University. The Trolley is operated by the City of Fayetteville and is
funded through the city's Advertising and Promotions Commission in an effort to boost tourism
and retail trade downtown and along the Dickson Street corridor.
The area is also served by a private carrier, Jefferson Bus Lines, which provides daily service to
destinations outside of Fayetteville.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-5
S PLANS AND POLICIES • •8.6 Aviation •
Fayetteville Municipal Airport, also known as Drake Field, is located withing the southern city
limits adjacent to U.S. Highway 71. Drake field operates as a general aviation airport. Drake
Field has approximately 77 aircrafts based on the field, 57 T -Hangar units, and 4 corporate
hangars. Current construction of additional T -Hangars will provide 16 additional units for more
aircrafts to locate on the field.
Drake Field is positioning itself to become the premiere general aviation airport in Arkansas.
The Airport has set a goal of having 200 aircraft based on the airfield. We anticipate that 200
aircraft will entice more aviation related businesses to locate at Drake Field. Currently it
provides services such as a Fixed Base Operator (FBO), an aircraft maintenance facility, a flight
training school, an avionics shop, and an airframe and powerplant training facility. The
extension of Ernest Lancaster Road will open up additional acreage on the airport for future
developments such as an aviation industrial airpark.
8.7 Rail
Fayetteville is served by an active rail line, the Arkansas and Missouri Railroad, which divides
the city in a north/south direction. In 1994, 53,820 tons were shipped from Fayetteville and •
318,340 tons terminated in Fayetteville. Also, in 1994, 553,000 tons of freight traveled through
Fayetteville.
The
Arkansas and
Missouri Railroad also
operates a tourist passenger train. The train makes day
trips
originating in
Springdale to local areas of interest.
8.8 Motor Freight
Arkansas Best Freight, J. B. Hunt Trucking and Yellow Freight Systems offer full carrier service
from Fayetteville to destinations both regional and national.
8.9 Trails
In addition to the transportation system necessary for moving vehicular traffic and transporting
people and goods, two additional types of transportation are utilized within the Fayetteville area.
These are sidewalks for pedestrians and a system of trails for dual use (hiking and biking). In
accordance with the Master Street Plan, sidewalks are provided on both sides of all functional
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-6
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• classifications of streets except residential streets. The Master Sidewalk Plan is updated with
each Large Scale Development or Subdivision proposal. At the time of development, the Plan is
consulted and, if called for by the plan, the developer is required to install any sidewalks noted
on the Plan and to provide sidewalks in accordance with the Master Street Plan on any new
street. Because of the hilly terrain of Fayetteville and inconsistent enforcement procedures of the
requirements for sidewalks, there are many areas of the city which do not have sidewalks or have
discontinuous sidewalks. During the Fayetteville Vision process, the citizens emphasized their
desire to have a good system of sidewalks. Fayetteville currently places a priority on developing
sidewalks and has designated funds within the Capital Improvement Program to upgrade
sidewalks within the city.
Although similar in function to sidewalks, additional trails to serve pedestrians and bicyclists are
needed. Fayetteville has designated and marked certain routes within the city as bikeways; these
routes coexist with the vehicular traffic using the streets and present conflict between the two
uses. Consequently, few citizens use the routes due to safety concerns. The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 provides federal funding for development of bikeways for
transportation purposes. Fayetteville has completed a proposal to develop a system of trails to
serve the one mile radius of all elementary and junior high schools within Fayetteville as a first
priority. The elementary and junior high school age population is targeted, because they are
under the legal age to operate a motor vehicle and their major transportation alternatives are
.
walking or biking. The planned system utilizes stream beds and neighborhood streets as
corridors to link neighborhoods to schools. The second priority of the system is to link schools
to schools and schools to parks. After those linkages are accomplished, linkages could be made
to link parks to parks and to provide transportation routes for adult riders. Where compatible, the
trail system will supplant the traditional sidewalk. Phase one of the plan is to place trails in the
one mile area around schools not served by the bus system operated by the public school system.
Twenty five miles of trail will be required to service this area at an estimated cost of $1.25
million.
8.10 Land Use as a Transportation Strategy
Higher development densities should be encouraged in the multiple activity centers located
around major public transport links. This would reduce traffic congestion and urban sprawl
while making the City more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. Each high density area should
include a mix of homes, jobs, and services, further reducing the need for auto trips while helping
to create a sense of neighborhood. Additional benefits include: less money and energy spent on
transportation, reduced infrastructure demands, fewer traffic accidents, and the revitalization of
blighted areas.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-7
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Allocations of land are critical to the transportation network, as traffic must be considered to •
support existing growth patterns and then to accommodate and guide new growth and
development. This General Land Use Plan does not include specific locations or detailed
regulations; however, it does indicate how the community should develop in the next 20 years.
Private developers should be aware of the plan to fit their proposals into the city-wide plan and
coordinate their proposals with public developments.
8.11 General Conclusions
Given the relatively steady growth of Fayetteville, it is important that regular maintenance of the
existing street system and development of alternative transportation modes occur. Fayetteville
should continue to plan for sidewalks and a system of trails and actively fund or seek funding for
these alternative transportation modes.
Implementation of the Master Street Plan will be critical to serving the new growth area and to
alleviating areas of traffic congestion. The General Plan 2020 recognizes the key need within
Fayetteville by calling for better east/west and north/south access.
New routes shown on the Master Street Plan include:
• extension of Joyce Boulevard to the west to intersect with Gregg Avenue,
• extension of Drake Street west to intersect with Gregg Avenue,
• construction of a left exit from State Highway 71B to connect to State Highway
471 south of Joyce Boulevard,
• widening of State Highway 265 (Crossover Road) from State Highway 16E
(Huntsville Road) to the Springdale city limits,
• extension of Sunbridge Road to connect to College Avenue,
• widening of Township Road from U.S.71B (N. College) through to Gregg
Avenue,
• extension of Gregg Avenue south to intersect with Lafayette Street,
• connection to the west of State Highway 265 (Crossover Road) to Happy Hollow
Road via Cliffs Boulevard,
• extension of Rolling Hills Drive to connect to Old Wire Road,
• extension of Cato Springs Road to connect with Pump Station Road, and
• extension and widening of State Highway 112 (Garland Avenue/Maple
Street/Razorback Road) from Van Asche Street south to connect with State
Highway 265S (Cato Springs Road) and the Fulbright Expressway/new U.S. 71
intersection.
Several more new street locations at the
perimeter of the
city are indicated
on the Master Street
Plan, including
a proposed limited access eastern bypass
to provide a loop
around the city. The
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-8
I •
[]
[1
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
frontage roads along the Fulbright Expressway are proposed to be connected wherever possible,
and several collector streets are proposed to serve the developing commercial area surrounding
the Northwest Arkansas Mall.
Consideration should be given to preserving corridors for roadways expected to need widening
and/or extension within the planning period. These include:
• areas along State Highway 265 (Crossover Road) from State Highway 16E north
to the City Limits,
• overpass areas at the northwest intersection of State Highway 71B and State
Highway 471,
• Joyce Boulevard,
• State -Highway 45 (Mission Boulevard) north and east of North Street,
• North Street,
• the corridor for extension of Salem Road, State Highway 16W (Wedington Road),
State Highway 180 (W. 6th Street/Hunstville Road) from State Highway 71B to
Stonebridge,
• the corridor for extension of Pump Station Road,
• the corridor for extension of Rupple Road, and
• the corridor for extension of Razorback Road.
Acquisition of right-of-way for proposed collector and arterial streets as shown on the Master
Street Plan should be initiated after routing studies have determined the precise routes for these
corridors.
State highways form a major part of the transportation network to and within Fayetteville. In
several cases, notably, Highway 265, Highway 16 and Highway 180, the routes are not
continuous. State highways should be used to divert through traffic around the city. Every effort
should be made to connect or, at a minimum, double sign routes so that continuity could be
maintained. This may require exchange of jurisdictional authority with the state as the routes are
sometimes widely separated. State Highway 180 for example, is the same as Drake Street
(north), Assembly Drive (east central), and W. 6th Street (south).
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
8-9
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
•
9 FUTURE LAND USE PLAN
9.1 Purpose
The Future Land Use Plan consists of two parts: (1) the text and (2) the map. This chapter is the
text of the Future Land Use Plan which identifies the guiding policies and implementation
strategies. The map is the graphic representation of the Future Land Use Plan. The purpose of the
Future Land Use Plan is to help local decision makers, developers and citizens determine how
the community envisions future development. It helps to ensure compatible land uses and to
manage development and growth.
9.2 Historical Development Patterns
Alfred N Raby, AICP, General Plan 2010
Topography has been the big factor influencing development patterns within and around
Fayetteville. Fayetteville is divided between the White River watershed on the east and the
Illinois River on the north and west. The White River watershed provided the largest and most
readily available source of water, thus much of the City's early growth occurred along the western
side of the White River Drainage Basin.
Early settlers to the Fayetteville area utilized the. varying topography and watershed basins to
determine how the land would be developed. Typically, homes were built on the hillsides which
provided ready access to water and shelter from inclement weather. Farming operations prevailed
along creeksides. Major thoroughfares paralleled stream valleys. Streets that were necessary to
traverse major grade changes were and continue to be short and discontinuous. These
topographical barriers have led to the lack of good through streets connecting the east and west
sides of the community.
9.3 Existing Land Use
City of Fayetteville Planning Staff, 1995
Existing developed areas (June 1995) were grouped into the following three categories to
estimate total developed areas: Residential, Commercial, and Industrial. These areas were
mapped and area calculated using 1994 aerial photography. Fayetteville currently has an
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-1
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE 9.1 •
DEVELOPED AREA
Incornorated Area (19951
Land Use
Acres
Residential
7,306
Commercial
1,306
Industrial
442
SUBTOTAL
9,054
Undeveloped / Underdeveloped
18,580
TOTAL
27.634
Source: City ofFayetteville Planning Division 1995.
estimated 7,306 acres of developed residential land, 1,306 acres of developed commercial land,
and 442 acres of developed industrial land. Much of the undeveloped and underdeveloped areas
are located within floodplains and on steep hillsides and represent approximately 67% of the area
within the city limits.
9.4 Undeveloped and Underdeveloped Areas
City of Fayetteville Planning Staff, 1995
Resolution 13-95 calls for an analysis of underdeveloped and undeveloped areas of the City.
The City of Fayetteville encompasses 43.2 square miles (27,634 acres) and the planning area
encompasses an additional 44.5 square miles (28,499 acres). This section of the General Plan
quantifies and shows geographically where the undeveloped and underdeveloped land suitable
for new development is located based on minimizing the use of floodplains and steep hillsides.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE. There are 7,785 acres of undeveloped or underdeveloped land
that may be suitable for future development located within the current City limits (areas that are
outside of special flood hazard areas and slopes 15% or greater). The undeveloped and
underdeveloped areas are shown on Figure 9.1 and have been classified into three different
categories inside the city limits:
(1) floodplains,
(2) hillsides, and
(3) undeveloped/underdeveloped land suitable for development.
On the same map, areas of floodplain and hillsides are shown within the planning area but the
remainder of the planning area is assumed to be underdeveloped/undeveloped and are therefore
not mapped. Developed areas are defined as areas that have been platted and developed and
include subdivisions and large scale developments.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-2
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE 9.2
FUTURE LAND USE MAP AREA CALCULATIONS (ACRES)
Favetteville
Future Land Use
Map Area
Developed Area
Estimated
Undeveloped Area
Estimated Area
Needed
Commercial
2,710
1,306
1,404
820
Industrial
1,839
442
1,397
278
Residential
10,158
7,306
2,852
4,864 to 5446
Source: City of Fayetteville Planning Division, 1995.
9.5 Future Land Use Needs
Land use projections are tied to the growth in population, employment data, and total estimated
developed area for the City of Fayetteville and are based on similar ratios and methods used in
the 2010 General Plan.
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND NEEDS. Estimated commercial and industrial
employment growth will require an additional 1,098 acres by the year 2020. This growth was
projected by utilizing Employment Security Commission data and estimating future employment
to the year 2020. To project future employment, the assumption was made that the percentage of
employment in each sector of the work force would remain constant for the 25 year planning
period.
Employment ratios were developed as part of the mapping and were utilized to estimate total
land requirements for the year 2020. Employment is estimated at 11.85 employees per acre for
commercial and 17.17 employees per acre for industrial.
Within the City limits, there are currently 1,404 acres of undeveloped/underdeveloped
commercial land shown on the future land use map (does not include mixed use areas). A total
of 1,099 acres will be required to accommodate the current and projected commercial
employment by the year 2020. This estimate is based on primarily single story commercial
development. In the future, less commercial land may be required if more multi- story structures
with multi -story parking are developed.
The future land use map contains approximately 1,839 acres of industrial land with 442 acres of
that total estimated to be developed. The projected land need for all industrial employment to the
year 2020 is 278 acres.
The south industrial park contains 430 acres and the research park contains 389 acres which
should provide adequate areas for new industrial and research facilities within the 25 year
planning period.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-4
•
0
i
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
• TABLE 9.3
EMPLOYMENT DENSITIES
Fayetteville
Existine Commercial
and Industrial
Land Use
Developed Acres
1995 Estimated
Employment
Employees/
Acre
Commercial
1,306
15,470
11.85
Industrial
442
7,587
17.17
Other
N/A
4,736
NIA
TOTAL
27.793
•MSA Ratio, Arkansas Employmqnt Security Department, 1995.
TABLE 9.4
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
LAND REQUIREMENTS TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH BY 2020
•
Land Use
Acres
Needed
Employment
Growth
Ratio Calculated
Employees/Developed Acres
Commercial
820
9,719
11.85
Industrial
278
4,767
17.17
TOTAL
1,098
Source: City of Fayetteville Planning Division
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-5
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE 9.5 •
SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK
Fayetteville (2001)
FIRM
YEAR
LOCATED
NO. ACRES
PURCHASED
BLDG.
SQ.FT.'95
EMPLOYED
SEP.'95
EMPLOYED
AUG.'00
Armstrong Tools, Inc.
1973
59.90
47,000
70
61
Bargo Engineering Co.
1976
7.00
33,000
40
40
Ozark Co -Operative
Warehouse
1976
14.60
34,665
40
44
Packaging Specialties Co.
1976
2.80
36,000
80
150
Northwest Oil Co., Inc.
1978
4.90
3,750
12
15
American Air Filter Co.
1979
12.95
60,000
200
135
AmeriGas
1979
2.44
3,000
6
6
Bio Engineering Resources,
Inc.
1980
4.29
3,400
N/A
26
Northwest Electric
1981
3.02
4,320
48
30
SWEPCO Power Sub-
Station
1981
3.75
N/A
N/A
N/A
Marshalltown Tools, Inc.
1981
14.60
87,000
175
175
Arkansas Western Gas Co.
1982
7.98
34,736
78
200
Superior Industries, Inc.
1986
35.99
642,000
1,169
1,300
PACMAC
1987
1.01
19,998
80
35
Marshalltown Tools
Warehouse
1988
28.80
79,600
25
25
Mostare Manufacturing Co.
1988
28.52
Future
N/A
0
Superior Employment
Center
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3
Danaher Tool Group
1991
28.78
93,242
125
96
Layer's Marine
1993
1.94
2,100
4
1
BioEngineering
Resources,lnc.
1994
9.90
14,000
50
21
Heartland Supply Co.
1994
11.10
22,000
10
6
Hanna's Candle Co.
1992
18.5
113,000
N/A
320
Indutec Corporation
1994
5.50
3,500
12
0 .
USPS Processing Dist.
Center
1997
10.77
2,000
131
100
TOTALS
331.34
1,490,311
2 322
2,804
Source: Economic Development Department, 2000
RESIDENTIAL. The amount of land needed to accommodate the estimated growth in
residential land use is estimated between 4,846 to 5,446 acres to accommodate 13,845 additional
dwelling units.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-6
0
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• Average density for all of 1994 residential subdivisions is approximately 2.41 dwelling units per
acre for single family R-1 zoning subdivisions and 8 dwelling units per acre for multi -family.
The overall residential density calculated from aerial photography is estimated at 2.58 dwelling
units per acre.
These 1994 density factors were utilized in residential dwelling unit projections because they
represent current development densities. However, policies in General Plans 2010 and 2020
encourage higher urban densities, where appropriate, in order to provide greater efficiency of
providing infrastructure and achieving a more compact urban form. Implementation of this policy
may require less land in the future to accommodate new residential growth.
Depending on how much of the underdeveloped/undeveloped and mixed use areas develop in the
future as residential properties and at what density, the City may need to annex in order to
accommodate future residential growth. Mixed uses areas should be allowed to develop with
future residential, office, limited industrial, and public land uses. Many of the mixed use areas
shown on the future land use map are areas that are undeveloped or underdeveloped and could be
developed for future residential land uses.
TABLE 9.6
• RESIDENTIAL LAND AREA AND HOUSING NEEDS
Favetteville(2020)
HIGH LAND AREA ESTIMATE
Acres
Dwelling
Units
Assumption
(High Land Area Estimate)
SingleSingleFamily
1,560
3,760
2.41 units/acreanda5%vacancyiatt
Duplex & Multi Family
879
7,033
8 units/acre and a 5% vacancy rate
Hillside
1,469
1,469
I unit/acre, 50% of the area developed
flood lain
1,538
1,583
1 unitlacre, 50% of the area developed
Total Acres a
5,446
13,845
LOW LAND AREA ESTIMATE
Acres
Dwelling
Units
Assumption
(Low Land Area Estimate)
Single Family
1,253
3,760
3 units/acre anda5% 5% vacancy rate
Duplex & Multi Family
586
7,033
12 units/acre and a 5% vacancy rate
Hillside
1,469
1,469
1 unit/acre, 50% of area developed
Flood lain
1,538
1,583
1 unit/acre, 50% of areadeveloped
Total Acreage
4,846
13,845
Source: City of Fayetteville Planning Division.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-7
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE 9.7 •
PROJECTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSING MIX
Fayetteville
2020
Additional Population Growth
32,832
Additional Dwelling Units
13,186
Percentage of Type of Dwelling Units
Single Family
49.2%
Multi -Family
50.8%
1994 Single Family Density
2.41 units/acre
1994 Multi -Family Density
8.00 units/acre
Assumed Vacancy Rate for All Residential Dwelling Types
5%
Total Dwelling
Units
Vacancy Rate
Adjustment
Number of Single Family Dwelling Units Needed
6,488
6,812
Number of Multi -Family Dwelling Units Needed
6,698
7,033
TOTAL
11,186
13,846
Source: City ofFayeneville Planning Division.
•
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
9-8
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
• 9.6 Future Land Use Map
The Future Land Use Map was adopted on December 19, 2000. The map identifies the plan for
future land use, based on existing and anticipated development patterns. It is the graphic
representation of the city's guiding policies and implementation strategies. The map should help
local decision makers determine how the community envisions future development. The map has
11 land use categories:
Community Commercial Parks
Historic Commercial Private Open Space
Industrial Regional Commercial
Mixed Use Residential
Neighborhood Commercial University
Office
• City Limits The following table represents the land area within the City of
Fayetteville shown on the future land use map. Residential land
use is the largest area designated on the future land use map and
. represents approximately 36% of the area. The second largest area
shown is the "environmental resource areas and parks" which
consist of floodplains, hillsides and parks and open space.
Commercial areas represent 17% of the total land area and include
all types of commercial uses and commercial zoning.
• Planning Area Much of the planning area is designated as residential on the future
land use plan. Community commercial nodes have been added
along the major arterials and the proposed eastern bypass at major
,intersections.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-9
.
k 9 @ K R
0-
!
i
..0. K i g k 2
;`
2 - - ® _ • -
Ce
/ 1j
Z ! 2 K f �§ §
c _ a
-|
0.0
00
-X kkk R K k i k \
k%
m §§ k
/ t <
•2 /I Ka ao
' $�
§ ! ■ .
<a - ! K K # K A § §
w 2.
. . . . _ . . $ _$
- 2 U
i | 4
/ ! , -
2o k E ! k
| | . § _
\ ! 3 . ;
! , & c a -
j # a ; - ! ! ! ; g ■ _
2 ! J
) ) k )\ k d J ) k/§
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
' 9.7 Future Land Use Guiding Policies and Implementation Strategies
In order to create and maintain a sense of place and connectivity within neighborhoods and the
community, the City of Fayetteville has adopted these guiding policies and implementation
strategies for making land use decisions within the City. Particularly, the General Land Use Plan is
the most important document in achieving long range planning and implementing land use controls
such as zoning and subdivision regulations. Guiding land use policies and implementation
strategies to achieve this goal are grouped into 13 categories as listed below:
A. Residential
B. Regional Commercial
C. Community Commercial
D. Historic Commercial (Downtown)
E. Neighborhood Commercial
F. Office
G. Mixed Use
H. Industrial
I. Parks / Recreation / Open Space
J. Historic District
K. Environmental Resources
. L. Community Character
Each land use classification is defined below, and land areas for each classification are designated
on the Future Land Use Map, except for community character and environmental resources. Future
land use designations are based on existing land use patterns and needs for these land uses as based
on future population projections and policies which the City wishes to implement. In this document,
the Guiding Policies and Implementation Strategies to be adopted as a part of General Plan 2020 are
presented in normal text. Historical notes, explanations, and progress made since General Plan
2010 are included in bold italic text. The Future Land Use Map and the policies upon which it is
based are the official guide to be used when the Planning Commission and City Council consider
rezonings, conditional uses, and annexation requests.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-11
•
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.8 Residential Areas •
Residential land use represents the largest area designated on the future land use map. Maintaining
and enhancing the residential environment of neighborhoods is an important community goal.
Existing zoning districts separate housing types by density, housing type, lot size, and frontage
requirements and thus promote uniformity of sizes and density. In a policy shift consistent with
General Plan 2010 principals, this land use plan establishes a policy for residential areas to be
planned as traditional neighborhoods containing a mix of different densities, housing types, and lot
sizes. Preserving existing housing in areas currently zoned for commercial or industrial use will
also provide residents of traditional neighborhoods with job opportunities nearby and contribute to
transportation goals by reducing dependency on car trips.
Residential Areas: Guiding Policies
9.8.a Utilize principles of traditional residential urban design to create compatible, livable,
and accessible neighborhoods.
9.8.b Protect and restore Fayetteville's outstanding residential architecture of all periods
and styles.
9.8.c Minimize through traffic on minor residential streets.
9.8.d Manage non-residential development within and adjoining residential neighborhoods
to minimize nuisances.
9.8.e Utilize more intense development patterns downtown, where appropriate, and
encourage mixed uses in new developments to promote better community design,
maintain human scale, and enhance pedestrian activity.
9.8.f Site new residential areas accessible to roadways, alternative transportation modes,
community amenities, infrastructure, and retail and commercial goods and services.
Residential Areas: Implementation Strategies
The General Land Use Plan is implemented through development codes. Public hearings
will be scheduled to consider amendments to the zoning map and development codes to
ensure consistency with the plan. Density bonuses, combining investment in public facilities
with private developments, and other similar types of incentives should be incorporated into
the development code to encourage residential necessities and amenities such as affordable
housing, tree preservation, and open space conservation. Community facilities such as parks
and schools should be sited in designated residential areas to better plan for accessibility to
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-12
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
. neighborhoods.
9.8.g Encourage residential units in appropriate specified Mixed Use areas.
This strategy may be implemented through regulatory and non -regulatory measures.
General Plan 2010 establishes a policy for encouraging residential units in appropriate
Mixed Use areas; however, specific regulations within the zoning/development code have
not been developed to reflect this policy.
General Plan 2020 designates desired Mixed Use areas and proposes utilizing strategies
such as combining public investment (e.g. schools, parks, infrastructure) with private
investment to create traditional neighborhoods.
9.8.h Adopt regulations which establish a development scale to maintain compatibility and
proportionality between nonresidential development and adjacent residential areas.
General Plan 2010 established this policy, and several of the regulations to implement
that plan have been adopted, such as, the Limited Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance
adopted May 16, 1995, and the Parking Lot Ordinance adopted February 21,1995.
Additional regulations further limiting the scale of commercial development outside
designated non-residential/Mixed Use areas would help prevent commercial development
disproportionate to its surroundings.
• 9.8.i Establish performance zoning design standards to mitigate adverse impacts of
contrasting land uses with residential land uses.
Also a goal of General Plan 2010, the Limited Neighborhood Commercial Ordinance
adopted May 16, 1995, uses a type of performance design zoning standard system.
Developing and implementing a true performance type zoning system citywide would
require a consultant and extensive additional studies and amendments to the
zoning/development code.
9.8.j Implement the Master Street Plan and incorporate bike lanes, parkways and
landscaped medians to preserve the character of the City and enhance the utilization
of alternative modes of transportation.
The City of Fayetteville General Plan of 1970 and General Plan 2010 identified many of
the same streets needing improvements in order for the City to manage its growth and
related traffic. Many of the streets needed for the City to develop in a planned manner
have been on the Master Street Plan for 25 years. In April, 1995, the City adopted
another Master Street Plan and full implementation of the Plan is dependent upon
funding from sales tax revenue and the Arkansas Highway and Transportation
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-13
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Department With limited funding, the City does not have the financial resources to
construct the necessary improvements. The City Council will need to address additional
financing strategies if the Master Street Plan is to be implemented within the 25 year
planning period
9.8.k Adopt a City policy of "connectivity", meaning that commercial areas and residential
areas are easily accessible by vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists.
General Plan 2010 set out the need for additional focus on alternative transportation
modes. The Bikeway Feasibility Plan was adopted by City Council in August, 1993. A
City policy regarding incorporation of bike lanes on public streets, trail development, and
implementation funding is required to further this policy. Establishment of the policy
alone will have no effect on advancing this goal, as the policy must be accompanied by a
plan for funding these improvements. The City also has a history and good regulations
on sidewalk construction; however, additional methods of completing sidewalks to form a
continuous network need to be developed New development should be regulated to
require "connectivity."
9.8.1 Develop an ordinance which regulates and encourages affordable housing by
providing density bonuses and other private development incentives.
9.8.m Develop an ordinance that provides a transition in multi -family zoning density from
6 units per acre to the current 24 units per acre allowed under R-2 Medium Density
Residential zoning. 9
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001. Revision
9-14
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• 9.9 Regional Commercial Areas
Fayetteville functions as the retail and professional services provider for Northwest Arkansas.
Businesses providing entertainment for a regional clientele are also located in Fayetteville, including
the Walton Arts Center, Razorback athletics, restaurants, theaters, and music clubs. It is vital to
Fayetteville's economy that commercial businesses are accessible to their customers, and it is
equally vital to maintaining the quality of life in Fayetteville that regional attractions are sited to
minimize negative impacts on neighborhoods and the City's transportation network. Appropriate
sites for existing and future regional commercial attractions are shown on the future land use map.
Regional Commercial: Guiding Policies
9.9.a Provide enough retail business and service space to enable Fayetteville to realize its
fill potential as a regional market.
9.9.b Encourage continuing improvements and expansion of regional shopping and
entertainment attractions.
9.9.c Ensure that the surface transportation network serving regional commercial areas
meet acceptable levels of service.
. 9.9.d Require that large commercial sites be designed and landscaped in a manner that
preserves the aesthetic character of their surroundings.
Regional Commercial: Implementation Strategies
The areas indicated for regional commercial development on the future land use map were
selected to best maximize and enhance the existing regional commercial areas of the City
and to create regional identity.
9.9.e Direct new regional development into designated regional commercial centers.
General Plan 2010 designated 4 regional commercial centers. With the exception of some
strip development along Highway 62W, policies of General Plan 2010 have been
implemented In addition to the four centers adopted under General Plan 2010, General
Plan 2020 will designate a new center at the 71 Bypass intersection with U.S
71/Razorback Road/Cato Springs Road as this intersection will soon become the main
entrance to the City. This area was addressed in the May, 1992, Design Guidelines for
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-15
E
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Entryway Corridors Study; however only a small portion of this plan has been
implemented to date. •
9.9.f Approve new regional commercial development as Planned Unit Developments
(e.g., shopping centers, business parks, medical parks, industrial parks, and mixed
use developments) in order to assure the overall integration of design and use.
Fayetteville's existing subdivision and zoning codes adopted in 1970 provide for Planned
Unit Development review, and these provisions should be retained in any revisions to the
code. The City is expecting a research park to develop near the U. S. 71 Bypass/Hwy. 112
intersection, and voluntary restrictive covenants will govern development in the park. No
regulations currently exist which require that large tracts of land be comprehensively
planned so that traffic patterns or uniform design standards may be considered by the
Planning Commission. Adoption of policy 9.9.f. would establish a goal that could be
implemented with additional regulations or be implemented by allowing the Planning
Commission more latitude in requesting these types of information prior to approving
large scale developments.
9.9.g Continue to enforce the provisions of the Bypass Design Overlay District Ordinance.
General Plan 2010 established the need for protection of city thoroughfare corridors and
the Design Overlay District Ordinance, adopted June 28, 1994, serves to create public and
private equity along the bypass, which is where most regional attractions choose to locate.
This also best utilizes existing and planned transportation infrastructure.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-16
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
• 9.10 Community Commercial Areas
Community Commercial areas are defined as activity areas that primarily serve the residents of the
community. These areas shown on the proposed land use plan would include grocery stores, dry
cleaners, restaurants, day care, video stores, banks, cafes, gas stations, and other similar types of
commercial services that are convenient and serve residents on a daily basis.
Community Commercial: Guiding Policies
9.10.a Provide centers that are accessible and compatible with adjacent residential
development.
9.10.b Limit uses within community commercial areas to those that primarily serve
residents of Fayetteville.
Community Commercial: Implementation Strategies
9.10.c Define appropriate areas and the size of areas for community commercial districts
and set standards for maximum floor areas and the type of uses allowed to discourage
regional types of commercial uses from locating within these areas.
. General Plan 2020 establishes community commercial districts and limits the type and
size of these commercial areas. This land use strategy should help reduce the number of
trips generated by residents to the commercial developments for daily needs as well as
promote community by having some smaller scale commercial areas accessible to
pedestrians.
9.10.d Develop commercial design standards to ensure compatibility with surrounding
residential development.
Parking lot standards requiring screening and landscaping of parking lots were adopted
by the City Council on February 21, 1995. Additional revisions to the zoning/development
regulations will be required to ensure that sufficient buffers and screening are integrated
into the overall design of the project for items such as utility equipment, outdoor storage,
loading docks, and other similar items that are adjacent to residential development and
visible to the public
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-17
4
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.11 Historic Downtown Commercial Areas
The historic downtown core of Fayetteville, the area between the University and the square, contains
the Dickson Street corridor, an important regional entertainment attraction. The area designated on
the future land use map for Historic Downtown Commercial includes Dickson Street, the square,
and the surrounding residential neighborhood. This is one of Fayetteville's oldest neighborhoods,
and has become an area of older houses that have been divided into boarding houses, student
apartments, and houses renovated for commercial use. The overriding goal for this area is to
encourage commercial development which retains the area's historic character and to encourage
denser residential development. This area is served by public transit and is within walking distance
of the university, employment centers, shopping centers, entertainment, and public amenities such
as parks. Businesses on the square are predominantly day businesses, while Dickson Street
businesses are night spots. A mix of both kinds of businesses in both places would allow shared
parking, and the presence of people during the day and night would increase the vitality of both
areas and discourage crime.
Historic Downtown Commercial: Guiding Policies
9.11.a Continue revitalization of the historic downtown commercial area, and enhance it
with evening businesses.
9.11.b Encourage the continuing revitalization of Dickson Street and provide a sense of
connection between Dickson Street and the square.
9.11.c Encourage retail use of ground floor space and restrict office and residential uses to
higher floors.
Historic Downtown Commercial: Implementation Strategies
Market forces are responsible for the recent revitalization of Dickson Street and the square,
and market forces will be responsible for most future revitalization. Public investment also
serves to attract private investment, as evidenced by the example of the Walton Arts Center.
In 2001, the Advertising and Promotion Commission completed construction of Fayetteville
Town Center near the square.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
9-18
'-I
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• 9.11 .d Review the C-3 and C-4 zoning requirements and combine into a single zoning
district to create uniform standards for both areas.
Fayetteville 's existing C-4 (downtown commercial) zoning district, adopted A ugust 2,
1977, allows relief from building setback requirements to encourage new development to
adapt to the historic building setbacks of downtown.
9.11 .e Identify and develop design standards for new development that encourage
compatibility with existing development and help link Dickson Street and the square.
The plan should include provisions for connecting the two areas and enhancing the
pedestrian environment between them.
The Dickson Street Improvement District was formed on June 6,1987, and has since
installed entrances to Dickson Street and begun the process of streetscaping. Other
strategies such as instituting impact fees on commercial developments which take place
outside of the downtown historic district may be considered in order to assure the viability
of the downtown historic district The Parking Lot Ordinance adopted February 21,1995,
also strengthens the Downtown Historic District by imposing parking fees for spaces not
provided at the time of development or renovation. Both the impact fee for development
outside of the Downtown Historic District and the Parking Lot fee are strategies for
providing public/private partnership to revitalize/and maintain the Historic Downtown
• District
The Block Street corridor is mostly commercial and could serve to connect the two areas.
9.l l.f Continue implementation of the recommendations of the Parking Study completed
March 3, 1994 to better manage parking in this area.
9.11 .g Investigate tax increment financing or improvement district status to encourage
additional private investment in the area.
9.11.h Include high density residential use as a use by right in the Historic Downtown
Commercial District and allow mixing of uses within the same building.
Permitting residential uses above ground floor commercial serves many useful public
purposes: housing costs are reduced, the pedestrian environment is enhanced by the
ground level shops, shared parking arrangements can reduce the area reserved for
parking, and crime is discouraged by the 24 hour use of a building.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-19
S
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.12 Neighborhood Commercial Areas •
Compact neighborhood commercial areas are a convenient way to meet the shopping needs of
adjacent residents. New areas should be limited to commercial uses that serve residential
neighborhoods. Activities and business hours should be managed to maintain compatibility with
residential neighborhoods. Neighborhood commercial areas are desirable because true
neighborhoods are not single -use residential subdivisions, but lively areas where all of the residents
daily needs can be met. Neighborhood commercial uses provide job opportunities, goods and
services, incubators for beginning businesses, and gathering places for nearby residents. For
example, restaurants, banks, day care, video stores, cafes, dry cleaners, and other similar types of
uses would be considered appropriate uses within these areas. The City recognizes the importance
of regulating the design, size, scale, landscaping, screening, and location of neighborhood
commercial uses within and adjacent to residential districts. The neighborhood commercial areas
shown on the future land use map are predominately nodes where commercial uses are currently
serving the needs of surrounding residential neighborhoods. Additional nodes should be identified
as new residential areas are developed.
Neighborhood Commercial Areas: Guiding Policies
9.12.a Enhance and regulate the appearance of neighborhood commercial areas within and
adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
9.12.b Protect adjoining properties from the potential adverse impacts associated with •
commercial uses adjacent to and within residential areas with proper mitigation
measures that address scale and massing, traffic, noise, appearance, lighting,
drainage, and effects on property values.
9.12.c Provide areas for off-street parking of motor vehicles that will be appropriate in size,
location, and scale within and adjacent to residential areas.
9.12.d Provide commercial uses that are accessible for the convenience of individuals living
in residential districts.
9.12.e Reduce the length and number of trips generated by residential development by
enhancing the accessibility to these areas.
Neighborhood Commercial Areas: Implementation Strategies
9.12.f Approve new neighborhood commercial development through the large scale
development process and the Limited Neighborhood Commercial Use Ordinance.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-20
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
. The City has recently adopted an ordinance permitting some commercial uses in
residential districts as recommended in the 2010 General Plan. This Neighborhood
Commercial Ordinance, adopted May 16, 1995, addresses the potential adverse impacts of
allowing limited neighborhood commercial uses within residential districts by the
adoption of standards and regulations to allow this type of use as a conditional use, and
intends to mitigate the potential adverse impacts associated with commercial uses by
allowing limited neighborhood commercial uses that are compatible in size, scale,
massing, and appearance with adjoining and surrounding residential uses.
9.12.g Encourage developers to designate and plan for neighborhood commercial areas at
the time of subdivision approval to properly plan for accessibility to these areas.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-21
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.13 PROFESSIONAL OFFICE AREAS
Fayetteville serves as the regional provider of professional services such as finance, insurance, real
estate, legal, government, and medical services. Since these services are regional in scope, their
locations should be as carefully planned just as the locations for regional shopping and
entertainment attractions are planned. The downtown square area is the established site for most
professional services and this pattern will continue. Medical services have traditionally been
provided at Washington Regional Medical Center and the Veteran's Administration Hospital, with
medical offices scattered throughout the City. Recently, the North Hills Medical Park opened near
the Gregg Avenue/71 Bypass intersection, and additional office development is expected in this
area. Washington Regional Medical Center is expected to move to a location near North Hills in the
future.
Professional Office Areas: Guiding Policies
9.13.a Provide ample space for professional offices.
9.13.b Encourage existing office areas to remain and expand as demand increases.
Professional Office Areas: Implementation Strategies
9.13.c The supply of office space is a function of demand. As the regional population
increases there will probably be a corresponding increase in the demand for office
space. Since most office uses are dependent on economies of agglomeration, they
will probably locate in close proximity to complementary office uses, so regulations
to require them to concentrate would be superfluous. Existing office areas will
expand as the market allows.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
9-22
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
. 9.14 Mixed Use Areas
The areas indicated as mixed use on the future land use map are areas where residential,
commercial, office, agricultural, and some industrial uses would be appropriate. Much of south
Fayetteville is shown as a mixed use area because it is in need of redevelopment and can
accommodate future development. Designation of mixed use areas will allow developers a great
deal of flexibility in terms of uses, while City regulations will maintain standards for quality mixed
development. This part of the plan recognizes that development is market driven and therefore
doesn't attempt to designate specific future land uses within these areas.
Mixed Use Areas: Guiding Policies
9.14.a Allow mixing of uses and integration of design through the planning process.
Mixed Use Areas: Implementation Strategies
Strategies specific to each mixed use area will need to be developed to properly manage and
encourage mixing of uses within these areas.
9.14.b Develop a planned unit development ordinance which allows mixing of uses and
integration of design through the planning process.
• 9.14.c Continue to implement the overlay district. The Bypass Design Overlay District
regulations should ensure that most of the areas along the 71 Bypass designated for
mixed use develop into attractive developments which increase the value of nearby
property and encourage further development.
In the past, strip development in the areas along heavily traveled (generally state)
highways has been the common pattern. If Fayetteville is to retain its identity as a unique
place, strip development should be discouraged and office park, and shopping complex
development should be encouraged
9.14.d Complete construction of the Razorback Road extension and the rail -trail to attract
investment in the area bounded by U. S. 71 Bypass, 6th Street, and U. S. 71
Business.
9.14.e Implement the Corridors and Gateways Plan as funding becomes available to further
improve the appearance of south Fayetteville.
9.14.f Concurrently develop strategies with the University of Arkansas to encourage
students to live in the area, perhaps providing densities sufficient to support public
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-23
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
transit. This corridor should also be considered for pedestrian enhancement through
future ISTEA, CDBG, and recreational grants. •
I*
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-24
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• 9.15 Industrial Areas
The Fayetteville Industrial Park has attracted some relatively "clean" industries (e.g. Armstrong
Tools, Ozark Coop), and should be fully developed to maximize use of the City's investment in
infrastructure for the park. Fayetteville's other heavy manufacturing industries are located near the
municipal airport (Drake Field) along U.S. 71. In addition to manufacturing, food processing is an
important industry in Fayetteville, and some of these processing facilities (e.g., Campbell Soup, OK
Feeds, Gold Kist) are located along the railroad spur south of 6th Street. Construction related
industries (e.g., Tune Concrete, Ridout and Meeks Lumber, Upchurch Electric) are sited along the
railroad parallel to Gregg Avenue. Although considered an industrial area on the future land use
map, Fayetteville's north industrial park is slated for development as a high technology research
park equipped with a fiber optic communications network.
Industrial Areas: Guiding Policies
9.15.a Minimize noise, visual, air and water pollution through performance standards.
9.15.b Encourage and recruit new industry to locate within the existing industrial park
unless rail access is necessary to the industry.
9.15.c Identify and rezone inappropriately zoned industrial areas to more appropriate uses.
For example, commercial or office uses are more appropriate for the area between the
Walton Arts Center and University Avenue than the current industrial zoning allows, and
some of the industrial land on south Gregg has recently been rezoned to allow high
density residential use near the university, downtown, and transit lines.
9.15.d Support development of the proposed research park.
Cooperation between the City, the University of Arkansas, the Chamber of Commerce,
and Southwestern Bell could enable the research park to make a major contribution to
the identity and economic health of Fayetteville. Exporting technology is a base economy
and creates spin-off local employment in service industries.
Industrial Areas: Implementation Strategies
Fayetteville's heavy industries process bulky items and often require rail access. Light
industries, some of which have the characteristics of offices, generate more traffic per acre
during peak hours. Large scale business parks and industrial areas, such as Fayetteville's
south industrial park and north research park, are often governed by voluntary restrictive
covenants.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-25
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.15.e Create a separate district for the research park.
The Chamber of Commerce and the Planning Division have worked jointly to develop •
restrictive covenants. The Planning Division reviewed a first draft of covenants which the
Chamber subcommittee provided Comments are now being incorporated into a set of
covenants which will be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council
Research Park restrictive covenants are developing very similarly to the Design Overlay
District.
9.15.f Incorporate performance zoning measures in the zoning code to protect adjoining
property from adverse effects of industrial uses.
Rather than depending on traditional measures such as setbacks, which indirectly address
nuisance abatement, performance zoning measures directly control particular nuisances.
9.15.g Limit industrial rezoning requests until such time as all current available industrial
land is fully utilized.
Approximately 285 acres of industrial land with adequate infrastructure is available in
the south industrial park. Industrial rezoning requests for land in designated mixed use
areas with rail access should be exempted from this provision.
r'1
LJ
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
9-26
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• 9.16 Environmental Resources
The citizens of Fayetteville place a high priority on environmental protection and the natural beauty
and scenic vistas of the City are a point of pride to most residents. Environmental issues are
addressed in other areas of the General Plan, from land use policies intended to create a more
compact community to transportation policies intended to reduce air pollution and energy use.
Environmental resources shall be defined as all physical and vegetative features of the community's
landscape which are necessary to maintain the functioning integrity and health of the natural
systems within the bounds of that community.
Environmental Resources: Guiding Policies
9.16.a Identify areas of environmental concern and protect and preserve environmental
resources.
Environmental Resources: Implementation Strategies
9.16.b Define and protect areas of significant floodplains, hillsides, trees, and other
environmental resources through cluster development provisions, density controls,
protective easements, and other new and existing development standards and
regulations.
• Fayetteville adopted a Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance in April, 1993, and
revised the Flood Damage Prevention Code, adopted April 11, 1995. Under General Plan
2020, development standards to protect hillsides from intense development will be
designed. The practice of cutting hillsides down to street grade either leaves a retaining
wall at the rear of the site and/or encourages all adjacent land owners to cut the hillsides.
Development needs to be designed to work with the terrain and physical characteristics of
the land. Development should not try to make the land fit standard building footprints.
9.16.c Establish community -wide greenways which incorporate the protection of floodways
and floodplains, and areas determined to be of environmental concern.
The Flood Damage Prevention Code, adopted on April 11,1995, will contribute to
implementing this strategy. The City also has an operating policy of requiring all
floodways to be designated as drainage easements; and ensuring that access to
drainageways is preserved by easements.
Tree Preservation and Protection: Guiding Policies
9.16.d Encourage preservation of rare and landmark trees as development takes place,
requiring replacement when preservation is not possible.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-27
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.16.e Identify, protect, and preserve rare and landmark trees during development.
Tree Preservation and Protection: Implementation Strategies
9.16.f Continue administration of the Tree Protection and Preservation Ordinance.
9.16.g Develop methods to identify and preserve tree preservation areas in perpetuity
through tree easements and/or private conservation easements.
Hillsides: Guiding Policies
9.16.h Minimize intense forms of urban development on steep slopes.
Hillsides: Implementation Strategies
9.16.i Develop a hillside management/protection ordinance.
Floodplains and Floodways: Guiding Policies
9.16.j Maintain and improve the City status in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP).
9.16.k Maintain a cooperative working relationship with FEMA so that adequate public
records are available to describe areas subject to flooding.
9.16.1 Minimize flood hazards to citizens through land use planning and regulation.
9.16.mMinimize flood damage
to public facilities
and
utilities
such as
water and gas mains,
electric, telephone and sewer lines,
streets
and
bridges
located
in floodplains.
Floodplain and Floodways: Implementation Strategies
9.16.n Continue administration of the Flood Damage Prevention Code adopted April 11,
1995.
9.16.o Apply for Community Rating Service to reduce Flood Insurance Rates.
9.16.p Establish a flood information library.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-28
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.17 Recreation and Open Space
One.of Fayetteville's greatest assets is its diversity of recreational areas and open space. As more
people move into the area, it is important that ample land be provided for both active and passive,
and facilities -based and resource -based recreation. The Parks and Recreation Divisions mission
statement is:
To meet the parks and recreational needs of all by providing a safe and diversified park
system that encourages community pride, visionary plannnig and operations, and
environmental stewardship.
Fayetteville's "Green Space Ordinance" was adopted as a part of the Subdivision Regulations as a
means of providing land for recreation. The ordinance requires that all new residential development
contribute either land or money in lieu of land to the Parks and Recreation Department. These
contributions are used to provide parks facilities in the area where the new development occurs. In
order to plan for future growth, the Parks and Recreation Department has adopted these guiding
policies and implementation strategies to assure the proper amount of land and facilities for the
enjoyment of all residents in the community. The guiding policies and implementation strategies of
this section have been incorporated from the 10 Year Master Parks Plan prepared by Lose and
Associates (2001). The City of Fayetteville is in the process of developing a new Master Parks and
Recreation Plan and Master Trails Plan (2000) that will provide additional policies and strategies to
manage the parks and recreation system and will supplement General Plan 2020.
Guiding Policy: Develop a citywide trail and greenway network.
Implementation Strategies:
9.17.a Hire a coordinator for trails and greenways.
9.17.b Coordinate and administer current and future trail projects.
9.17.c Develop and adopt a trail and greenway master plan within one year of
adoption of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
9.17.d Seek a wide variety of funding sources for enhancements to a trail and
greenway network.
9.17.e Utilize the Park Land Dedication Ordinance for development of a trail and
greenway network.
9.17.f Provide adequate ongoing management and maintenance resources for a trail
and greenway network.
. Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-29
S PLANS AND POLICIES •
Guiding Policy: Increase park safety and accessibility. •
Implementation Strategies:
9.17.g Enhance and expand park patrol.
9.17.h All renovated and new park facilities shall meet ADA standards.
9.17.i Develop design standards for ADA and safety.
9.17.j Improve parking and pedestrian facilities.
9.17.k Provide improved security and sports lighting at appropriate park locations.
Guiding Policy: Upgrade existing and provide additional community and neighborhood
parks.
Implementation Strategies:
9.17.1 Implement detailed recommendations of the Parks and Recreation Master
Plan.
9.17.m Provide neighborhood parks within '/2 mile radius of all residential areas.
9.17.n Provide community parks within 2 mile radius of all residential areas.
9.17.0 Utilize the Park Land Dedication Ordinance for adding new community and
neighborhood parks.
9.17.p Use existing funding and seek alternative funding sources for land acquisition •
and park upgrades.
9.17.q Provide adequate management and maintenance resources for a continuous
commitment to the highest level of quality service for community and
neighborhood parks.
9.17.r Develop design standards for safety, information and aesthetics at all parks.
Guiding Policy: Provide a multi -sports complex.
Implementation Strategies:
9.17.s Actively seek land for development of a multi -sports complex.
9.17.t Provide multiple recreational activities at one site.
9.17.0 Partner with various user groups to develop a multi -sports complex.
9.17.v Seek various funding sources to acquire land and develop a multi -sports
complex.
Guiding Policy: Preserve open space.
Implementation Strategies:
9.17.w Utilize the Park Land Dedication Ordinance for preservation of open space.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
9-30
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.17.x Evaluate existing and future open space needs.
9.17.y Provide adequate ongoing management and maintenance resources for open
space preservation.
• 9.17.z Coordinate with Planning Division and develop strategies to preserve open
space.
9.17.aa Use existing funding and seek alternative funding sources for land
acquisition.
9.17.ab Review opportunities for conservation easements.
Guiding Policy: Increase program diversity.
Implementation Strategies:
9.17.ac Improve and clarify partnership agreements with other agencies and
associations.
9.17.ad Anticipate future program needs.
9.17.ae Seek various funding sources to expand existing programs and initiate new
programs.
Guiding Policy: Eliminate duplication.
. Implementation Strategies:
9.17.af Address program areas where duplication exists.
9.17.ag Improve and clarify partnership agreements with other agencies and
associations.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-31
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.18 National Registered Historic Districts
Fayetteville currently has three historic districts, the Washington -Willow Historic District, the Mt.
Nord Historic District, and the Wilson Park Historic District. The City applied for and received
grants in 1992 and 1993 to review the Washington -Willow Historic District and other areas for
possible nomination as National Registered Historic Districts. The result of the work accomplished
under those grants was the expansion of the Washington -Willow Historic District and the creation
of the Wilson Park Historic District in May, 1995. Also, several historic buildings and sites exist
outside these districts. The City supports the mission statement of the Historic District
Commission, which states "We believe that a dynamic perspective of history is fundamental to our
community's continued evolution and growth and that the present community must actively affirm
the significance of its past for future generations."
Historic Districts: Guiding Policies
9.18.a Protect and preserve historically significant structures and landmarks within the City.
Historic preservation by the City is very important. Simply relying on National Register
status will not always preserve the historical integrity of a structure, area, etc. Emphasis
by the City in practicing historic preservation is extremely important to achieving historic
preservation.
•
9.18.b Integrate Fayetteville's historical past with the social and economic dynamics of the •
present through revitalization, restoration and renovation efforts. Historically
significant structures may be integrated into functionally viable residential and
commercial business uses.
9.18.c Foster public education about the Historic District Commission and Fayetteville's
Historic Districts.
9.18.d Enhance revitalization through the strategic use of public planning and funding, and
working in concert with private sector investment.
Historic Districts: Implementation Strategies
9.18.e Develop design guidelines for each historic district.
The National Park Service approved in May 1995 a new historic district for the Wilson .
Park area and approved the expansion of the Washington -Willow Historic District. Draft
guidelines have been developed for the Washington -Willow Historic District Additional
guidelines will need to be developed for the Mt. Nord and Wilson Park Historic Districts.
9.18.f Continue to work with the residents of each historic district to develop local
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-32
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
ordinance districts.
Residents of the Wilson Park Historic District have approached the Planning Division
about the possibility of creating a local ordinance district. Staff will continue to provide
technical support for residents of this neighborhood and other neighborhoods that would
like to become local ordinance districts.
9.18.g Recognize individuals who contribute to the preservation of historic resources in the
City.
The City of Fayetteville recognizes two. outstanding examples of historic preservation each
year to create awareness and recognize the efforts of those individuals involved who
contribute to the preservation of Fayetteville's past.
9.1 8.h Utilize all types of available funding sources to protect and enhance Fayetteville's
historic resources.
The Planning Division has utilized grants from the State ofArkansas to perform historic
surveys and applied for ISTEA enhancement funds to restore the Maple Street and
Lafayette Street Bridges. Both of these bridges have been placed on the National Register
of Historic Places in May of 1995. Enhancement funds are administered by the Highway
Department and approval of this grant application has not been received.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-33
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.19 Community Character
This chapter identifies the man made and natural features that add character to the City of
Fayetteville and establishes guiding policies and implementation strategies to protect, enhance, and
preserve these features.
Community Character: Guiding Policies
9.19.a Protect and enhance Fayetteville's appearance, identity and sense of place.
9.19.b Retain the small town character of Fayetteville.
9.19.c Protect the historical and environmental resources of Fayetteville.
Community Character: Implementation Strategies
9.19.d Discourage perimeter walls and guard houses around the perimeter of new residential
developments and promote "connectivity" to increase accessibility and provide more
livable neighborhoods.
9.19.e Implement design standards for reduced street widths within new residential
development.
•9.19.f Allow compatible commercial development within and adjacent to residential
development.
This strategy is partially accomplished with the Limited Neighborhood Commercial
Ordinance adopted on March 16,1995, which sets out performance standards for non-
residential development within residential districts.
9.19.g Encourage new residential development to incorporate varying lot sizes, home prices,
and types of dwelling units.
9.19.h Define and enhance the entryways into the City
The City has applied for and received grants to construct entryway signs into Fayetteville.
A citywide contest was held and a project design has been chosen. The first two of the
planned six entry way signs will be installed on U.S. 71 near the airport and on Highway
45 near Highway 265.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-34
I
C1
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• 9.19.i Promote higher density development and mixed use development within the City
limits to provide for more efficient development, create traditional neighborhoods,
and preserve open space.
Many of the older historic neighborhoods in Fayetteville that are desirable places to live
consist of small lots, a mixture of residential uses, and have narrow streets designed in
grid
9.19.j Develop guidelines for the coordination of street tree planting, on -site landscaping
and tree planting, and tree protection and preservation within utility easements.
9.20 Circulation Guiding Policies and Implementation Strategies
Circulation: Guiding Policies
In order to guide the formulation of a master street plan and direct the Planning Commission
regarding land use decisions which affect transportation issues, the following policies are
suggested:
9.20.a .Promote the coordinated and efficient use of all available and future transportation
modes.
• 9.20.b Meet the diverse transportation needs of the people of the city, including rural and
urban populations and the unique mobility needs of the elderly and disability
communities.
9.20.c Ensure the repair and necessary improvements of roads and bridges throughout the
City to provide a safe, efficient and adequate transportation network.
9.20.d Minimize the harmful effects of transportation on public health and on air and water
quality, land and other natural resources.
9.20.e Promote reliance on energy -efficient forms of transportation.
9.20.f Incorporate a public participation process in which the public has timely notice and
opportunity to identify and comment on transportation concerns.
9.20.g Monitor and improve transportation facilities to conveniently serve the intra-city and
regional travel needs of Fayetteville residents, businesses and visitors.
9.20.h Monitor the incidence of traffic accidents and implement physical and operational
measures to improve public safety.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
9-35
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
9.20.i Support the Razorback Transit service and the Downtown Trolley, which offer
convenient and reliable alternatives to the automobile. •
9.20.j Establish facilities which accommodate safe and convenient travel for pedestrians
and bicyclists.
9.20.k Provide for off-street parking as needed to accommodate employees, visitors and
customers in the downtown area.
9.20.1 Promote mixed -use and traditional neighborhood development to reduce roadway
demand and change travel patterns.
9.20.m Encourage that impacts on the transportation network are considered in land use
decisions made by the Planning Commission.
9.20.n Periodically update the master street plan.
9.20.o Direct through traffic around the perimeter of the city.
9.20.p Establish a major continuous east -west connection at the northern perimeter and one
at the south.
Circulation: Implementation Strategies •
Implementing the policies set forth in this circulation element of the General Plan will
require particular strategies. Many transportation policies will be implemented through
supporting ordinances, regulations, and development codes; others will be realized through
the actions of private developers, citizens, and state and federal agencies. The following list
of strategies may be implemented by the city:
9.20.q Synchronize traffic control devices and simplify intersections where feasible.
9.20.r Require. new development to demonstrate that there will be adequate road capacity
before approval or issuance of permits.
9.20.s Provide for new development to commit to project -related, off -site traffic mitigation
measures as and when deemed necessary.
9.20.t Seek to maintain parking requirements consistent with anticipated demand for
parking.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
9-36
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
. 9.20.0 Consider park and ride lots for bus patrons and car pooling centers.
9.20.v Encourage intensive new development within 1/4 mile of public transit routes.
9.20.w Encourage mixed use development to allow for day and night utilization of available
ping•
9.20.x Encourage the construction of sheltered bus stops and bicycle parking facilities at
transit stops, shopping centers and employment centers.
9.20.y Make full use of all available federal and state funding for transportation
enhancement projects.
9.20.z Maintain communication with the University regarding transportation needs.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020. • 2001 Revision
9-37
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
•
10 MASTER STREET PLAN
Amended September 17, 1996, Street Classifications, Res. No. 97-96
10.1 Street Classifications
Planning is required to connect Fayetteville to other population centers and to provide for
circulation within the community. New development must be provided with proper access to
alleviate problems associated with congestion and safety by requiring streets in sufficient number
and of adequate size to accommodate peak traffic volumes.
The Master Street Plan is a hierarchy of various street types. All streets within Fayetteville have
been functionally classified in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the U. S. Department of
Transportation's National Highway Functional Classification Study Manual. Functional
classification is defined by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Transportation Study as: The
grouping of public ways by likeness of service or purpose into classes or systems according to
the character of service they are intended to provide. The frame of reference is the sense of
service offered to and expected by the road user. Neither ownership nor administrative
• responsibility is relevant in grouping by function. The hierarchy offunctional classes reflects
the type oftraffic using each facility and how they function in relation to the overall street
network Streets within Fayetteville are classified as one of the following nine types:
RESIDENTIAL STREETS provide for the lowest level of traffic and service. They provide
access to residential property and are intended to be used only by local traffic.
Design Service Volume: 300-500
Speed: 15-20 mph
Traffic Lanes: Two 10' lanes
Parking: Allowed
Paved Width: 24' from back of curb
Right of Way: 40'
Sidewalks: One 4', at least 5' from curb
Tree planting areas: tn4 Two, at least 5' wide
24'
14- 4" ---'j
IMinimum I
Residential
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-1
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
RESIDENTIAL WITH ALLEY is a street type provided for "traditional neighborhood"
development, with access to properties from rear alleys. These streets provide access to
residential property and are intended to be used only by local traffic.
Design Service Volume:
Speed:
Traffic Lanes:
Parking:
Paved Width:
Right of Way:
Sidewalks:
Tree planting areas:
Curb cuts
4
100-300
10-15 mph
Two 9' lanes
Allowed
22' from back of curb
35'
One 4', at least 4' from curb
Two, at least 4' wide
None
22'
— 35'-0"
Minimum
Residential
with Alley
Varies I
I` 20•
Alley
ALLEY is used in conjunction with the above residential street to provide rear access to
properties, garages, and off-street parking spaces.
Design Service Volume:
Speed:
Traffic Lanes:
Parking:
Paved Width:
Right of Way:
Sidewalks:
Tree planting areas:
Curb cuts:
<200
5-10 mph
Undefined
Not Allowed
10' (one way) to 16' (two way)
20'
None
None
Continuous access possible. No curb required
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-2
fl
•
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• LOCAL STREETS provide for the second lowest level of traffic flow and service. They
provide access to abutting land uses and provide connections to higher order systems: They are
not intended to provide for through traffic movements.
Design Service Volume: Less than 4,000 vpd
Speed: 20-25 mph
Traffic Lanes: Two 10' lanes
Parking Lanes: Provided but not defined
Paved Width: 28' from back of curb
Right of Way: 50'
Sidewalks: Two 4', at least 6' from curb
Tree planting areas: yyTwo, at least 6' wide
ay
28
50'-0
Minimum
Local
. COLLECTOR STREETS provide traffic circulation within residential, commercial, and
industrial areas. They collect traffic from local or residential streets in neighborhoods and
channel it into the arterial system. Connections between arterials should be indirect to
discourage use by traffic from outside the neighborhood. In residential neighborhoods, frontage
along collectors is discouraged; houses should front on local or residential streets.
Design Service Volume: 4,000 vpd, 6,000 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 25-30 mph
Traffic Lanes: Two 11' travel lanes, 10' turn bays where warranted
Parking Lanes: Two lanes provided. None when turn bay exists
Paved Width: 36' from back of curb
Right of Way: At least 70'
Multi -use trail: Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
Tree Planting areas: may, Two, at least 10' wide Jyy.y
36 --1
70'-0'
Minimum
. Collector
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-3
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
HISTORIC COLLECTOR provides traffic circulation within the historic and developed parts of •
central Fayetteville. This type of collector street recognizes the right-of-way limitations associated
with developing in "built -out" areas of the city.
Design Service Volume: 4,000 vpd, 6,000 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 25-30 mph
Traffic Lanes: Two 11' travel lanes, 10' turn bays where warranted
Parking Lanes: Two lanes provided. None when turn bay exists
Paved Width: 36' from back of curb
Right of Way: At least 50'
Sidewalk 6'
MINOR ARTERIAL STREETS connect higher functional class facilities, etc. Residential frontage
is strongly discouraged. Access should be from perpendicular local or residential streets.
Design Service Volume: 12,200 vpd, 14,800 vpd with left turn bays
Speed: 35-40 mph
Traffic Lanes: Four 12' travel lanes, 11' turn lanes possible at intersections
Parking Lanes: None
Paved Width: 52' from back of curb, 59' with turn lane
Right of Way: At least 90'
Multi -use Trail: Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
Tree Planting Areas Two, at least 10' wide
90._0..
Minimum
Minor Arterial
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-4
•
Cl
0
•
a
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL STREETS carry high volumes of through traffic. They are designed as
boulevards for beauty and safety. In areas where sufficient right of way is unobtainable, the minor
arterial four lane section can be used.
Design Service Volume:, 17,600 vpd, 20,600 vpd with left turn bay
Speed: 40-45 mph
Traffic Lanes: Four 12' travel lanes, 12' turn lanes possible at intersections and at
frequent intervals
Parking Lanes: None
Paved Width: 28' from back of curb each side of median
Right of Way: At least 110'
Multi -use Trails: Two at least 6' wide, at least 10' from curb
Median: 20' minimum if no turn bay. May be reduced to 8' to accommodate
Tree planting areas:
turn bays
Two, at least 10' wide, in addition to the median
110'-o_
Minimum
Principal Arterial
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-5
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY STREETS are high speed, multi -lane facilities with a high degree of
access control. These facilities serve the major centers of activity of a metropolitan area; and are
designed for the longest trips by being well integrated with the arterial streets serving the area. They
should provide a high level of traffic service for travelers who do not have local destinations and wish
to bypass the city.
Design Service Volume: 28,300 vpd expressway; 44,800 vpd freeway
Speed: 45-55 mph
Traffic Lanes: Four 12' lanes; where at grade intersections occur on expressways,
right and left turn lanes shall be provided; no grade crossings
allowed on freeways
Parking Lanes: None; emergency parking permitted on shoulders
Shoulders: 10' outside and 6' inside shoulders
Paved Width: 80' from edge of paved shoulder
Right of Way: 200'; 300' for State and Federal projects with more at interchanges;
varying including shoulders
Sidewalks: None
FREEWAY/EXPRESSWAY
r -I
10.00• 24.00• 6.00' UT 2,.00• 10.00• i
10.2 Master Street Plan
A listing of all of the streets classified and shown on the master street plan is in Attachment A. The
detailed table identifies each street segment by name or proposed name, classification, existing
number of lanes, proposed number of lanes, length, and proposed right-of-way width.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
10-6
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
•
11 ANNEXATION
11.1 Purpose
Annexation is the inclusion of previously unincorporated lands within the city limits. Annexation
has benefits to the residents of the annexed area as well as to the City. The residents gain access
to urban services, such as enhanced police and fire protection, and have a voice in city
government. The City gains the ability to control development and extend boundaries in a logical
manner.
The purpose of this planning element is to take a more active approach toward annexations by
identifying potential annexation areas and establishing annexation policies. The annexation
policies will guide evaluation of future annexation proposals. The policies are designed to ensure
that public services, infrastructure, and utility extension is properly addressed in order to manage
growth. The potential annexation areas can become part of the city when annexation policies are
met.
• 11.2 History and Trends
The original town was incorporated in 1870 with approximately 1200 acres. Since incorporation,
the city has made 115 annexations, totaling 28,903.16 acres. Annexation activity was relatively
slow until the 1940s, when over 2,500 acres were annexed with 10 annexations. During the
1950s, almost the same number of annexations took place, however, the total land area annexed
was significantly smaller than in the 1940s. By the 1960s, annexation activity increased
dramatically, with 42 annexations bringing over 18,000 acres into the city limits. Annexation
numbers dropped in 1970 and stayed steady until the 1990s, when the number of annexations
tripled from the 1980s. In 2000, the city contained 45 square miles.
TABLE 11.1
ANNEXATION HISTORY
Fayetteville QS70 - 2001
Time Period
No. of Annexations
Total Acres
1870
Original Town
1,202.48
1910
1
160.57
1932
1
83.60
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-1
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE!!.! •
ANNEXATION HISTORY
Fayetteville (1870 - 2001)
1940-1949
10
2,572.05
1952-1958
9
1,194.66
1960-1969
42
18,250.55
1970-1978
12
1,347.14
1980-1988
9
1,591.87
1990-1999
27
2,106.70
2000 -(Aug) 2001
4
393.54
Total
115
28,903.16
Source: City of Fayetteville;GJS, August 2001
The Historical Annexation Map is located in Appendix B.
•
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-2
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• TABLE 11.2
SIX LARGEST ANNEXATIONS
Favetteville (1870-2001)
Ordinance Number
Acres
Year
889
1,765
1946
1258
1,48924
1961
1274
2,138.61
1961
1479
1,267.69
1966
1556
11,376.66
1967
2857
1,286.45
1982
Source: City ofFayetteville, G/S, August, 2001
Approximately 60 percent of the total annexations can be attributed to six single annexations.
Each of these annexations included more than 1,000 acres. Four of those six annexation occurred
during the 1960s. The most significant annexation was in 1967 that added over 11,000 acres to
the city limits.
• Until 1960, the number of persons per acre remained relatively high, but decreased between 1940
and 1960. The significant drop in persons per acre from 3.9 in 1960 to 1.3 in 1970 is reflective of
the significant land area annexed during this time. The trend of decreasing persons per acre
reversed in 1980 and increased over the next two decades. By 2000, the persons per acre was 2.2.
FIGURE 11.1
LAND AREA AND POPULATION
Fayetteville (1940-2000)
0
0
C
0
0
70
60
60
40
30
20
10
Acres
—U—
Population
1940 1960 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-3
I
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE 11.3 •
POPULATION VS. LAND AREA
Fayetteville (1940-2000)
Year
Population
Land Area
Persons
Per Acre•
Persons
Percent Change
Acres
Percent
Change
1940
8,212
-
1,446.65
-
5.6
1950
17,017
107.2%
4,01$.70
177.79%
4.2
1960
20,274
19.1%
5,213.36
29.73%
3.9
1970
30,729
61.7%
23,463.91
350.1%
1.3
1980
36,608
19.1%
24,811.05
5.74%
1.5
1990
42,247
15.0%
26,402.92
6.42%
1.6
2000
58,047
37.9%
26,756.46
7.98%
2.2
Source: 2010 General Plan Addendum; City of Fayetteville, GIS, August 2001
11.3 State Statutes on Annexation
Arkansas Statutes
Title 14, Chapter 40 of the state statute discusses annexation. Annexations can be initiated by a
municipality or by property owners.
A municipality can annex contiguous lands, lands surrounded by the municipality, and land
contiguous and in adjacent counties. To annex any contiguous lands, the governing body must
adopt an ordinance, passed by two-thirds of the governing body and hold an election of the
people. Those lands must meet one of the following criteria:
• Platted and held for sale or use as municipal lots;
• Whether platted or not, if the lands are held to be sold as suburban property;
• When the lands furnish the abode for a densely settled community or represent the actual
growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary;
• When the lands are needed for any proper municipal purposes such as for the extension of
needed police regulation; or
• When they are valuable by reason of their adaptability for prospective municipal uses.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
11-4
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Contiguous lands must not be annexed if they meet either of the following criteria:
Have a fair market value at the time of adoption of the ordinance of lands used only for
agricultural or horticultural purposes and the highest and best use of the land is for
agricultural or horticultural purposes; or
Are lands upon which a new community is to be constructed with funds guaranteed in
whole or in part by the federal government under Title IV of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968 or under Title VII of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1970.
To annex land surrounded by a municipality, the governing body can propose an ordinance to
annex the property. Again, the lands must meet the criteria listed above. A public hearing must
be held within 60 days of the proposed ordinance. A majority of the governing body must
approve the annexation for it to become effective.
Property owners in areas contiguous and adjacent to a municipality may request annexation. They
can apply with a petition of the majority of land owners in the area, if the majority of the total
number of owners own more than one-half of the acreage affected.
11.4 Potential Annexation Areas
The potential annexation areas should be identified by the City using the following criteria.
• Areas that are already urban in character.
• Areas than can be developed at urban densities.
• Immediate areas are those that are peninsulas or islands, where municipal services have
already been extended.
• Vacant lands that are subject to development pressure.
• Areas where urban services are already provided.
• Areas where urban services are needed.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-5
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
11.5 Unincorporated Islands
To clear up boundaries for ease in providing services, such as fire and police, unincorporated
islands need to be incorporated. The City has identified 11 land areas that are surrounded by.the
city limits. All of the candidates, with the exception of two, are indicated on the Future Land Use
Plan as residential. Of the two exceptions, one is planned for Private Open Space and the other
for University, which are the properties' existing land use. If all of the unincorporated islands are
annexed, the land area would increase by 1,342.16 acres for a total of 28,098.63 acres in
Fayetteville.
TABLE 11.4
ANNEXATION CANDIDATES - UNINCORPORATED ISLANDS
Fayetteville (2001)
Candidate Acres Existing Land Use Future Land Use
'26.72 Residential Residential
2 163.94 Residential Residential
3 4.38 Vacant Residential
4 1.00 Residential Residential •
5 3.20 Residential Residential
6 12.23 Vacant Residential
7 .025 Vacant/Cemetery Residential
8 280 Residential
9 75.75 Residential
10 74.92 Private Open Space
11 700 University University
TOTAL 1,342.17
Source: City ofFayetteville, GIS, Annexation Candidate Maps, 2001.
Maps of the annexation candidates are in Appendix C.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision •
11-6
0
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
• 11.6 Annexation Guiding Policies
Boundaries
11.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an
island or peninsula.
11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits.
11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not
divide.
11.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors.
11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development
and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas.
Emergency and Public Services
11.6.g Public services must be able to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas.
11.6.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city
limits.
11.6.i The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in teens of equipment,
training of personnel, number of units and response time.
Infrastructure and Utilities
11.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed.
11.6.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the
demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety.
11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas
based on planned service extensions or availability of services.
• Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-7
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Intergovernmental Relations
11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
11.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and
sewer.
Administration of Annexations
11.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process.
11.6.p An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals. .
11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals.
11.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities.
11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries.
11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-8
•
C
0
I
[1
• ATTACHMENTS •
S
A MASTER STREET PLAN
STREET CLASSIFICATIONS
goFayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000 CLASS PROP REQUIRED
• • LANFS FEET ROW
I1TH ST
record: 448 from: DUNCAN AVE HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
• to: HILT. AVE
15TH ST
record: 445 from: BEECHWOOD AVE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
• to:. HAPPY HOLLOW RD
record: 489 from: BEECHWOOD AVE HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
to: RAZORBACK RD
18TH ST
record: 443 from: FUTRALL DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: BEECHWOOD AVE
46TH AVE
record: 31 from: MOUNT COMFORT COLLECTOR 2 70
to: 280 Ft. south of MOUNT COMFORT RD
record: 374 from: PERSIMMON ST COLLECTOR 2 70
to: WEDINGTON DR
54TH AVE
record: 375 from: PERSIMMON ST COLLECTOR 2 70
to: WEDINGTON DR
record: 393 from: WEDINGTON DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: 720 Ft. north of WEDINGTON DR
record: 395 from: 720 Ft. north of WEDINGTON DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: WHEELER RD
59TH AVE
record: 394 from: WEDINGTON DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: 1071 Ft. north of WEDINGTON DR
record: 396 from: 1071 Ft: north of WEDINGTON DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: JESS ANDERSON RD
6TH ST
record:
6
from:
SCHOOL AVE
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
4
110
to:
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
record:
421
from:
WOOD AVE
HISTORIC COLLECTOR
2
50
to:
HUNTSVILLE RD
record:
422
from:
SCHOOL AVE
HISTORIC COLLECTOR
2
50
to:
WOOD AVE
ADAMS RD
record:
358
from:
WHEELER RD
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
4
110
to:
LEIRLY LN
record:
359
from:
SUNSHINE RD
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
4
110
to:
APPLEBY RD
record: 299 from:
to:
record: 431 from:
to:
ARCHIBALD YELL I
WHEELER RD
GREGG AVE COLLECTOR
PLAINVIEW AVE EXT.
GREGG AVE COLLECTOR
DRAM ST
ILVD
2 70
2 70
Page 1 of 17
•I
•1
•1
NAME
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
•
ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD
record: 208
from:
COLLEGE AVE
to:
SCHOOL AVE
• ARKANSAS AVE
record: 401
from:
MAPLE ST
to:
NORTH ST
record: 413
from:
DICKSON ST
to:
MAPLE ST
ARMSTRONG RD
record. 452
from:
15TH ST
to:
BORICK DR
ASH ST
record: 317
.from
WALNUT AVE
to:
CHARLEE AVE
ASSEMBLY DR
record: 423
Gram:
SKYLINE DR
to:
MISSION BLVD
AUSTIN DR
record: 315
from:
ASH ST
to:
POPLAR ST
BEECHWOOD
AVE
record: 444
from:
15TH ST
to:
18TH ST
ST
.BERTHA
record: 289
from:
LEE AVE
to:
STUBBLEFIELD RD
BETTY JO DR
record: 390
from:
PERSIMMON ST
to:
WEDINGTON DR
BLACK OAK RD
record: 453
from:
BORICK DR
to:
DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN RD
BLOCK AVE
record: 419
from:
MOUNTAIN ST
to:
DICKSON ST
BRIDGEWATER LN
record: 221 .
from:
OLD WIRE RD
to:
2612 Ft. east of OAKLAND -ZION RD
record: 222
from:
1512 FL west of GULLEY RD
to:
ESTATE VIEW RD
BROOKS
record: 464
from:
15TH ST
to:
BOONE ST
BROYLES AVE
record: 378
from:
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
to:
PERSIMMON
. BUTTERFIELD
COACH RD
1i.II'iii
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 . 50
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR
2 70
2 70
Page 2 of 17
NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000 CLASS FR )Pc REQUIRED
• •LANES FEET ROW
BUTTERFIELD COACH RD
record: 218 from: FOX HUNTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
record: 475 from: ZION RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
CALIFORNIA BLVD
record: 410 from: HARMON AVE HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
to: LEROY POND DR
CATO SPRINGS RD
record: 458 from: SCHOOL AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: RAZORBACK RD
record: 459 from: SCHOOL AVE MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: MORNINGSIDE DR
record: 469 from: HIGHWAY 71 COLLECTOR 2 70
to: KESSLER MOUNTAIN RD
CENTER ST
record: 411 from: COLLEGE AVE HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
to: HARMON AVE
CHARLEE AVE
record: 316 from: MISSION BLVD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: CHARLEE AVE EXT.
CHARLEE AVE EXT.
record: 494 from: CHARLEE AVE COLLECTOR 2 70
to: SAMANTHA AVE
CITY LAKE RD
record: 451 from: PUMP STATION RD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: WILLOUGHBY RD
CLAYWOOD LN
record: 224 from: SASSAFRAS HILL RD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
CLEVELAND ST
record: 400 from: 112 Ft. east of WILLIS AVE HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
to: SANG AVE
CLIFFS BLVD
record: 239 from: CROSSOVER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: WYMAN RD
record: 243 from: HAPPY HOLLOW RD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: CROSSOVER BLVD
CO. RD. 649
record: 376 from: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: PERSIMMON ST
COLLEGE AVE
record: 209 from: ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY (NORTH)
record: 427 from: ROCK ST HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
to: 15TH ST
COUNTY RD 92
Page 3 of 17
NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000
•
COUNTY RD 92
record. 251 from: ZION RD
to: HOWARD ANDERSON RD
• CROSSOVER RD
record: 236 from: HUNTSVII.LE RD
to: MISSION BLVD
record: 237 from: MISSION BLVD
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN RD
record: 454 from: EASTERN BYPASS
to: BLACK OAK RD
record 455 from: 3380 Ft. south of GOFF RD
to: EASTERN BYPASS
record: 456 from: GOFF RD
to: 3380 Ft. south of GOFF RD
DEANE SOLOMON RD
record: 339 from: MOUNT COMFORT RD
to: HIGHWAY 112
DEANE ST
record: 398 from: GARLAND AVE
to: PORTER RD
DICKSON ST
record: 408 from: FLETCHER AVE
•to: COLLEGE AVE
record: 491 from: COLLEGE AVE
to: ARKANSAS AVE
DOT TIPTON RD
record: 380 fmm: CO. RD. 649
to: DOUBLE SPINGS RD
DOUBLE SPRINGS RD
record: 381 from: SELLERS RD
to: JOHN MILLER RD
DOUBLE TREE DR
record: 362 from: RAVEN LN
to: WHEELER RD
DRAKE ST
record: 300 from: QUAIL CREEK DR
to: GREGG AVE
record: 301 from: QUAIL CREEK DR
to: COLLEGE AVE
record: 302 front GREGG AVE
to: GARLAND AVE
record: 483 from: GARLAND AVE
to: MCCONNELL AVE
DUNCAN AVE
CLASS. T
COLLECTOR 2 70
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
COLLECTOR
„u s• .
4
90
4
•90
4
90
2
70
i
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
Page 4 of 17
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
NAME
•
DUNCAN AVE
record: 446
from:
15TH ST
to:
11TH ST
E GULLEY RD
record: 226
from:
OLD WIRE RD
to:
N GULLEY RD
EAST AVE
record: 414
from:
MOUNTAIN ST
to:
DICKSON ST
EASTERN BYPASS
record: 228
from:
FOX HUNTER RD
to:
PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
record: 230
from:
CLIFFS BLVD
to:
1300 Ft. north of CLIFFS BLVD
record: 232
from:
CITY LAKE RD
to:
WYMAN RD
record: 233
from:
WILLOUGHBY RD
to:
CITY LAKE RD
record: 234
from:
WILLOUGHBY RD
to:
SCHOOL AVE
ERNIE JACKS
BLVD
record: 305
from:
165 Ft. east of TULL AVE
to:
GARLAND AVE
record: 306
from:
165 Ft. east of TULL AVE
to:
GARRETT DR
ESTATE VIEW
RD
record: 223
from:
1586 Ft: west of SASSAFRAS HILL RD
to:
SASSAFRAS HILL RD
FLETCHER AVE
record: 412
from:
DICKSON ST
to:
LAFAYETTE ST
FOX HUNTER RD
record: 229
from:
1480 Ft. south of NOLAN PLANT
to:
1488 Ft. north of NOLAN PLANT
record: 231
from:
WYMAN RD
to:
CLIFFS BLVD
record: 245
from:
HENSON FARM RD
to:
EASTERN BYPASS
FRONT ST
record: 273
from:
MILLSAP RD
to:
JOYCE BLVD
FRONTAGE RD
record: 269
from:
JOYCE BLVD
to:
ZION RD
FUTRALL DR
CLASS PROP REQUIRED
. LANES FEET ROW
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110 •
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70 •
COLLECTOR 2 70
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
Page 5 of 17
NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000
•
FUTRALL DR
• record: 441 from: WEDINGTON DR
to: 6TH ST
• record: 442 from: 6TH ST
to: 18TH ST
• record: 466 from: RAZORBACK RD
to: SCHOOL AVE
GARLAND AVE
record: 304 from: WEDINGTON DR
to: I-540
record: 405 from: MAPLE ST
to: WEDINGTON DR
• record: 463 from: BOONE ST
to: CATO SPRINGS RD
record: 465 from: CATO SPRINGS RD
to: FUTRALL DR
GARRET! DR
record: 307 from: COLLEGE AVE
to: JESSE
record: 308 from: JESSE
to: BUCK WATSON
GEORGE ANDERSON RD
• record 216 from: GULLEY RD
to: ZION RD
record: 217 from: ZION RD
to: ALBRIGHT RD
GOFF FARM RD
record: 470 from: DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN RD
to: ROBERTS RD
• GOVERNMENT AVE
record: 416 from: PRAIRIE ST
to: 6TH ST
GREENVIEW DR
record: 438 from 690 Ft. south of MISSION BLVD
to: MISSION BLVD
GREGG AVE
record: 284 from: TOWNSHIP ST
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
record: 402 from NORTH ST
to: TOWNSHIP ST
GULLEY RD
record: 253 from: HIGHWAY 45
to: HOWARD PORTER RD
. record: 257 from: OLD WIRE RD
to: ZION RD
�• PROp REQUIRED
I.ANFS FEET ROW
COLLECTOR 2 70
FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
COLLECTOR 2 70
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
Page 6 of 17
NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000
•
GULLEY RD
record: 258 from: JOYCE ST
to: OLD WIRE RD
GULLEY RD EXT. EAST
record: 225 from: HOWARD PORTER RD
to: EASTERN BYPASS
GUY TERRY RD
record: 250 from: ZION RD
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
GYPSUM DR
record: 334 from: west end of TRUCKER'S DR
to: east end of GYPSUM DR
record: 335 from: RAVEN LN
to: SALEM RD
record: 353 from: SALEM RD
to: 593 Ft. west of SALEM RD
HAPPY HOLLOW RD
record: 242 from: PADDOCK RD
to: CLIFFS RD
record: 449 from: PADDOCK RD
to: 15TH ST
record: 490 from: PADDOCK RD
to: HUNTSVILLE RD
HAROLD ST
record: 493 from: COLLEGE AVE
to: STUBBLEFIELD RD
HARVEY DO WELL RD
record: 247 from: WYMAN RD
to: NORMAN MURPHY RD / MALLY
HENSON FARM RD
record: 479 from: FOX HUNTER RD
to: HIGHWAY 45
HIGHWAY 112
record: 327 from: 1286 Ft. east of CRIS HOLLOW RD
to: 399 Ft. west of DEANE SOLOMON RD
record: 332 from: 1-540
to: VAN ASCHEDR
record: 352 from: HIDDEN ACRES RD
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
HILL AVE
record: 447 from: 6TH ST
to: 11TH ST
HOLLYWOOD AVE
record: 439 from: 6TH ST
to: 1210 Ft. south of 6TH ST
EQUIRED
CLASS PROP R
• LANES FEET ROW
COLLECTOR 2 70
El
aIc
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70 •
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
4
110
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
4
110
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
4
110
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
Page 7 of 17
•
1u1O 1 L' a OS fltat. 1 L l.ff1a na.
NAME • NOVEMBER 28, 2000 ESOP 9
S
HOLLYWOOD AVE
record: 440 from: 1210 FL south of 6TH ST COLLECTOR 2 70
to: 18TH ST
HOWARD ANDERSON RD
record: 249 from: GEORGE ANDERSON RD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: COUNTY RD 92
HOWARD NICKELL RD
record: 326 from: HIGHWAY 112 PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: SALEM RD
record: 329 from: SALEM RD PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
HOWARD PORTER RD
record. 254 from: GULLEY RD PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: GULLEY RD EXT. EAST
record: 255 from: GULLEY RD EXT. EAST COLLECTOR 2 70
to: GUY TERRY RD
HUGH MOUNT RD
record 363 from: MOUNT COMFORT RD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: LEIRLY LN
rt lss : ' :1
record: 148 from: STARR DR MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: HUNTER DR
HUNTER RD
• record: 147 from: 1760 FL south of FOX HUNTER RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: 280 Ftsouth of FOX HUNTER RD
HUNTSVILLE RD
record: 428 from MILL ST PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
record: 487 from: MILL AVE HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
to: BLAIR AVE
record 488 from: BLAIR AVE COLLECTOR 2 70
to: HAPPY HOLLOW RD
HWY INTERCHANGE
record: 282 from: MALL AVE FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
to: COLLEGE AVE
1-540 and HIGHWAY 71 BYPASS
record: 474 from: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY (NORTH) FREEWAY/EXPRESSW 4 200-30
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY (SOUTH)
JOYCE BLVD
record: 260 from: CROSSOVER RD PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: JOYCE ST
record: 261 from GREGG AVE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: CROSSOVER BLVD
JOYCE BLVD EXT.
. record: 227 from: JOYCE ST PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: OLD WIRE RD
JOYCE ST
Page 8 of 17
1
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
NAME
•
JOYCE ST
record: 259
from:
JOYCE BLVD
to:
GULLEY RD
KNAPP DR
record: 351
from:
GARLAND AVE
to:
PORTER RD
LAFAYETTE ST
record: 407
from:
MISSION BLVD
to:
ARKANSAS AVE
LEIRLY LN
record: 355
from:
WEIR RD
to:
VELMA DR
record: 356
from:
VELMA DR
to:
HUGH MOUNT RD (SOUTH)
record: 357
from:
HUGH MOUNT RD
to:
ADAMS RD
LEROY POND DR
record: 409
from:
CALIFORNIA BLVD
to:
RAZORBACK RD
LEVERETT AVE
record: 310
from:
NORTH ST
to:
GARRETT DR
record: 492
from:
MAPLE ST
to:
NORTH ST
LONGVIEW ST
record: 293
from:
PLAINVIEW AVE
to:
COLLEGE AVE
record: 295
from:
511 Ft. west of PLAINVIEW AVE
to:
PLAINVIEW AVE
MALL AVE
record: 279
from:
SHILOH DR
to:
JOYCE BLVD
MALLY WAGNON RD
record: 248
from:
HUNTSVILLE RD
to:
HARVEY DO WELL RD I NORMAN
MAPLE ST
record: 406
from:
GARLAND AVE
to:
RAZORBACK RD
record: 486
from:
MISSION BLVD
to:
GARLAND AVE
MCCONNELL
AVE
record: 303
from:
KNAPP DR
to:
DRAKE ST
MILL ST
record: 426
from:
ROCK ST
to:
HUNTSVILLE RD
MILLER ST
CLASS
COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR
PROP REOUIRED
• LANES FEET ROW
2 70
2 70
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
HISTORIC COLLECTOR
2
50
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2
70
50
Page 9 of 17
• I
•1
• I
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
NAME •
MILLER ST
record: 313 from: YATES AVE
•to: GREGG AVE
MILISAP RD
record: 267 from: GREGG AVE
to: VANTAGE DR
MISSION BLVD
record: 211 from: LAYAYETTE ST
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
record: 480 from: LAFATETTE ST
to: NORTH ST
MONTE PAINTER DR
record: 292 from: NORTHHI.LS BLVD
to: WIMBERLY DR
MORNINGSIDE DR
record: 450 from: HUNTSVILLE RD
to: PUMP STATION RD
MOUNT COMFORT RD
record: 361 from 1-540
to: 46TH AVE
MOUNTAIN ST
record: 420 from: COLLEGE AVE
to: SCHOOL AVE
NEW BRIDGE RD
record 345 from: RUPPLE RD
to: 155 FL east of HIGH AVE
record: 346 from: 283 FL west of TRILLIUM LN
to: SUNSHINE RD
record: 347 from: 155 Ft. east of HIGH AVE
to: 283 Ft. west of TRILLIUM LN
NORTH ST
record: 403 from: GREGG AVE
to: GARLAND AVE
record: 404 from: GREGG AVE
to: MISSION BLVD
NORTHHIL S BLVD
record: 291 from: MONTE PAINTER DR
to: FUTRALL DR
OAKLAND -ZION RD
record: 256 from: BRIDGEWATER LN
to: GULLEY RD
OLD MISSOURI RD
record: 285 from: OLD WIRE RD
to: ZION RD
OLD WIRE RD
record: 212 from: MISSION BLVD
to: SKILLERN RD
a.
COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR
ERQZ REoumED
LAN FEET ROW
2 70
2 70
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4
COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR
MINOR ARTERIAL
2 70
2 70
2 70
4 90
Page 10 of 17
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
NAME
•
OLD WIRE RD
record: 213
from:
SKILLERN RD
to:
GULLEY RD
OLD WIRE RD EXTENSION
record: 432
from:
CROSSOVER RD
to:
OLD WIRE RD
PEMBROKE RD
record: 435
from:
ROCKWOOD TRL
to:
SHREWSBURY LN
PERSIMMON
ST
record: 372
from:
SHILOH DR
to:
46TH AVE
record: 373
from:
46TH ST
to:
54TH AVE
record: 382
from:
CO. RD. 649
to:
DOUBLE SPRINGS RD
PLAINVIEW AVE
record: 294
from:
367 FL south of KENRAY ST
to:
NE LLSAP RD
record: 297
from:
APPLEBY RD
to:
LONGVIEW ST
POPLAR ST
record: 311
from:
COLLEGE AVE
to:
AUSTIN DR
record: 312
from:
YATES AVE
to:
COLLEGE AVE
PORTER RD
record: 397
from:
DEANE ST
to:
SHILOH DR
record: 485
from:
WEDINGTON DR
to:
DEANE ST
PRAIRIE ST
record: 415
from:
WEST AVE
to:
GOVERNMENT AVE
PROPOSED ROAD
record: 433
from:
SKILLERN RD
to:
OLD WIRE RD
PUMP STATION RD
record: 462
from:
567 Ft. east of CITY LAKE RD
to:
ARMSTRONG RD
PUMP STATION RD (ALIENMENT)
record: 461
from:
CITY LAKE RD
to:
576 Ft. east of CITY LAKE RD
RAVEN LN
record: 337
from:
145 Ft. north of QUAIL DR
to:
SALEM RD
EQUIRED
CLASS PROP R
• LANES FILET ROW
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70 •
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
Page II of 17
0
• NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000
RAVEN IN
record: 338 from: MOUNT COMFORT RD COLLECTOR
to: QUAIL DR
• RAZORBACK RD
record: 429
from:
MAPLE ST
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
4
m:
15TH ST
record: 430
from:
15TH ST
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL
4
to:
HIGHWAY 71
RIDGEWAY DR
record: 436
from:
PEMBROKE RD
HISTORIC COLLECTOR
2
to:
VIEWPOINT DR
ROBERTS RD
record: 471
from:
HUNTSVILLE RD
COLLECTOR
2
to:
GOFF FARM RD
ROCK ST
record: 425 from: COLLEGE AVE HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2
to: WASHINGTON AVE
ROCKWOOD TRL
ord 434 from• MISSION BLVD HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2
rec
to:
PEMBROKE RD
ROLLING HILLS DR
record:
286
from:
COLLEGE AVE
COLLECTOR
to:
OLD MISSOURI RD
record:
287
from:
OLD MISSOURI RD
COLLECTOR
•
to:
OLD WIRE RD
record:
298
from:
PLAINVIEW AVE
COLLECTOR
to:
COLLEGE AVE
RUPPLE
RD
record:
343
from:
2193 Ft. north of MOUNT COMFORT RD
MINOR ARTERIAL
to:
WILLIE PERRY LN
record:
344
from:
MOUNT COMFORT RD
MINOR ARTERIAL
to:
2193 Ft. north of MOUNT COMFORT RD
record:
367
from:
600 Ft. south of NEW BRIDGE RD
MINOR ARTERIAL
to:
NEW MOUNT COMFORT INTERSECTION
record:
368
from:
600 Ft. sourth of NEW BRIDGE RD
COLLECTOR
to:
OLD MOUNT COMFORT INTERSECTION
record:
369
from:
WEDINGTON DR
MINOR ARTERIAL
to:
600 Ft. south of NEW BRIDGE RD
record:
370
from:
PERSIMMON ST
MINOR ARTERIAL
to:
WADINGTON DR
record:
371
from:
6TH ST
MINOR ARTERIAL
to:
PERSIMMON ST
SAGELY
LN
record:
476
from:
GULLEY RD
MINOR ARTERIAL
.
to:
688 Ft. east of GULLEY RD
2
2
2
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
.i
110
110
50
70
50
50
70
70
70
90
90
90
70
90
90
90
90
Page 12 of 17
NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000
•
SAGELYLN
record: 477 from: 688 Ft. east of GULLEY RD
to: EASTERN BYPASS
SALEM RD
record: 340 from: HIGHWAY 112
to: DEANE SOLOMON RD
record: 341 from: MOUNT COMFORT RD
to: HOWARD NICKELL RD
record: 342 from: WEIR RD
to: 1917 Ft. north of WEIR RD
record: 348 from: 105 Ft. north of FAIRFAX ST
to: MOUNT COMFORT RD
record: 349 from: WEDINGTON DR
to: 105 Ft. north of FAIRFAX ST
SALEM RD EXT.
record: 330 from: SALEM RD
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
SAMANTHA AVE
record: 495 from: CHARLEE AVE EXT.
to: 116 Ft. south of ASH ST
record: 496 from: 116 Ft. south of ASH ST
to: ASH ST
SANG AVE
record: 399 from: CLEVELAND ST
to: WEDINGTON DR
SASSAFRAS HILL RD
record: 252 from: HIGHWAY 45
to: GUY TERRY RD
SCHOOL AVE
record: 207 from: ACHIBALD YELL BLVD
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
record: 418 from: DICKSON ST
to: ARCHIBALD YELL BLVD
SELLERS RD
record: 377 from: RUPPLE RD
to: CO. RD 649
SHEPARD LN
record: 270 from: FRONTAGE RD
to: VANTAGE DR
SHILOH DR
record: 280 from: 1157 FT. SOUTH OF JOYCE BLVD
to: JOYCE BLVD
record: 283 from: STEELE BLVD
to: GREGG AVE
record: 385 from: MOUNT COMFORT RD
to: HIGHWAY 112
o s
COLLECTOR 2 70 • I
COLLECTOR
2
70
MINOR ARTERIAL
4
90
COLLECTOR
2
70
COLLECTOR
2
70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
Page 13 of 17
•
rd
NOVEMBER 28, 2000
CI ASS
PROP
1314
NAME
•
LASS
tEl
SHILOH DR
record:
386
from:
344 Ft. south of POINT WEST ST
COLLECTOR
2
70
to:
MOUNT COMFORT RD
•
record:
387
from:
DOROTHY JEANNE ST
COLLECTOR
2
70
to:
344 Ft. south of POINT WEST ST
record:
388
from:
WEDINGTON DR
COLLECTOR
2
70
to:
DOROTHY JEANNE ST
record:
389
from:
6TH ST
COLLECTOR
2
70
to:
WEDU4GTON DR
record:
467
from:
CATO SPRINGS RD
COLLECTOR
2
70
to:
1530 Ft. south of CATO SPRINGS RD
record:
468
from:
1530 Fl. south of CATO SPRINGS RD
COLLECTOR
2
70
to:
SCHOOL AVE
record:
473
from:
6TH ST
COLLECTOR
2
70
to:
44 Ft. south of SUMMERHOUSE LN
record:
478
from:
44 Ft. south of SUMMERHOUSE LN
COLLECTOR
2
70
to:
CATO SPRINGS RD
462
As,,.,.r
STEELE BLVD
COLLECTOR
2
70
reco
to: MALL AVE
SKILLERN RD
record: 219 from OAKLAND -ZION RD
to: EASTERN BYPASS
• record: 220 from: OLD WIRE RD
to: OAKLAND -ZION RD
SKYLINE DR
record: 424 from: ASSEMBLY RD
to: ASSEMBLY RD
STARR DR
record: 244 from: WYMAN RD
to: MISSIONS BLVD
record: 246 from: MISSION BLVD
to: TOWNSHIP ST
record: 457 from: WYMAN RD
to: DEAD HORSE MOUNTAIN RD
record: 481 from: HUNTER DR
to: MISSION BLVD
STEARNSST
record: 271 from: JOYCE BLVD
to: 120 FT. EAST OF REMINGTON DR
record: 272 from: 120 FT. EAST OF REMINGTON DR
to: VANTAGE DR
STEELE BLVD
.
record: 274 from: VAN ASCHE DR
to: JOYCE BLVD
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
COLLECTOR 2 70
PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
Page 14 of 17
NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000 CLASS PROP REQUIRED
• • LANES FEET ROW
STEELE BLVD
record: 275 from: SHILOH DR MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: VAN ASCHE DR
STUBBLEFIELD RD
record: 290 from: HAROLD ST COLLECTOR 2 70
to: OLD MISSOURI RD
SUNBRIDGE DR
record: 322 from: VILLA BLVD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: COLLEGE AVE
SUNSHINE RD
record: 364 from: MOUNT COMFORT RD MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
to: ADAMS RD
record: 365 from: 1510 Ft. south of JESS ANDERSON RD PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: ADAMS RD
SYCAMORE ST
record: 319 from: GREGG AVE COLLECTOR 2 70
to: LEVERETT AVE
record: 320 from: WALNUT AVE COLLECTOR 2 70
to: GREGG AVE
record: 321 from: LEVERETT AVE COLLECTOR 2 70
to: GARLANDS AVE
TECHNOLOGY BLVD
record: 350 from: SHILOH DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: DEANE SOLOMON RD
TOWNSHIP ST
I
record: 323 from: GREGG AVE COLLECTOR 2 70
to: CROSSOVER RD
record: 484 from: COLLEGE AVE COLLECTOR 2 70
to: CROSSOVER RD
TRUCKERS
record: 333 from: HIGHWAY 112 COLLECTOR 2 70.
to: 775 Ft. west of HIGHWAY 112
UNNAMED
record: 366 from: PERSIMMON ST PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: SUNSHINE RD
VAN ASCHE DR
record: 276 from: STEELE BLVD PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: 318 FT. WEST OF STEELE BLVD
record: 277 from: 318 FT. WEST OF STEELE BLVD PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: GREGG AVE
record: 278 from: STEELE BLVD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: MALL AVE
record: 325 from: GREEG AVE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: 1033 Ft. west of GREGG AVE
record: 328 from: MCGUIRE ST PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: HIGHWAY 112
•I
•I
Page 15 of 17
• NOVEMBER 28, 2000 CLASS •
NAME
VAN ASCHE DR EXT.
record: 281 from: MALL AVE COLLECTOR
to: SHILOH DR
.VAN ASCHE DR REALIGNMENT
2 70
record: 324 from: VAN ASCHE DR PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4
to: VAN ASCHE DR
VANTAGE DR
record: 262 from: STEARNS ST COLLECTOR 2 70
to: ZION RD
record: 263 from: JOYCE BLVD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: STEARNS ST
record 264 from: JOYCE BLVD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: STEARNS ST
record: 266 from: MILLSAP RD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: JOYCE BLVD
VIEWPOINT DR
record: 437 from: RIDGEWAY'DR HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
to: VIEWPOINT DR
W SALEM RD
record: 331 from: DEANE SOLOMON RD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: N SALEM RD
WALNUT AVE
word: 318 from: SYCAMORE ST COLLECTOR 2 70
to: ASH ST
WEDINGTON DR
record: 383 from: CARRIAGE WAY PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
record: 384 from: GARLAND AVE PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: CARRIAGE WAY
WEIR RD
record: 354 from: GYPSUM DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: LEIRLY LN
WEST AVE
record: 417 from: PRAIRIE ST HISTORIC COLLECTOR 2 50
to: LAFAYETTE ST
WHEELER RD
record: 360 from: 266 Ft. south of DOUBLE TREE DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: DOUBLE TREE DR
WILLOUGHBY RD
record: 235 from: EASTERN BYPASS PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL 4 110
to: SCHOOL AVE
WILSON ST
record: 379 from: RUPPLE RD COLLECTOR 2 70
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
WIMBERLY DR
record: 296 from: MONTE PAINTER DR COLLECTOR 2 70
to: MILLSAP RD
110
Page 16 of 17
NAME NOVEMBER 28, 2000WYMAN RD •
record: 238 from: CROSSOVER RD
to: CLIFFS BLVD
record: 240 from: CLIFFS BLVD
to: 2550 Ft.east of PAB on WYMAN RD
record: 241 from: WYMAN RD
to: PLANNING AREA BOUNDARY
YATES AVE
record: 314 from: POPLAR ST
to: MILLER ST
ZION RD
record: 268 from: COLLEGE AVE
to: CROSSOVER RD
T
`-"^"" • LANES FEET ROW
COLLECTOR 2 70
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90 •
MINOR ARTERIAL 4 90
COLLECTOR
COLLECTOR
2 70
2 .70
Page 17 of 17
0
• ATTACHMENTS •
B HISTORICAL ANNEXATION MAP
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
N
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION APROVING THE GENERAL PLAN 2020.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
That the City Council hereby approve the General Plan 2020. A copy of the plan is
attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof.
PASSED AND APPROVED this day of , 2002.
APPROVED:
By:
Dan Coody, Mayor
ATTEST:
By:
Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
5,
FAYETTPVILLE M
THE CITY OF FAYE'1-t'EVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Mayor Dan Coody
Fayetteville City Council
FROM: Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: February 15, 2002
BACKGROUND
ADM 01-47.00: Revision and reorganization
of General
Plan 2020
to update census data;
update the community facilities section; add an
annexation
policy; and
reorganize for easier use.
On December 19, 1995, the City Council adopted General Plan 2020 with Resolution No. 147-
95. Part of the resolution required that major revisions of the General Plan be scheduled every
five years. In June 2000, the General Plan 2020 Subcommittee met to revise the plan, as required
in Resolution 147-95. After holding eight public hearings, the City Council adopted the 2000
revision of General Plan 2020 on December 19, 2000 with Resolution Number 170-00 A -C.
In Spring 2001, 2000 Census data for Arkansas cities was published on the U.S. Bureau of the
Census web site. The data indicated significant changes in population and housing that are
important to planning activities and staff began updating the census data in the general plan. In
doing so, staff determined that the Community Facilities section was in need of an update and
proceeded with the revision.
In researching the procedures for adopting an annexation policy, it appeared that an Annexation
Element was often included in a city's general plan. Since General Plan 2020 was already
undergoing a revision, it was determined an appropriate time to draft a policy to include in the
plan. Finally, the revisions and updates resulted in some reorganization of the plan to case the
task of finding information.
In Summer 2001, staff notified the Planning Commission that these revisions were taking place
and would be presented to them at the end of the year. The revised General Plan 2020 was
distributed to the Planning Commission at the December 13, 2001 planning commission retreat.
CURRENT STATUS
The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend the City Council approve the revisions to
General Plan 2020.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revisions to General Plan 2020.
C. ITEMPIGENER 1. PLAN DOC
FAYETT?IILLE
THE CITY OF FAYET EVILLE, ARKANSAS
113 W. Mountain St.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Telephone: (501) 575-8264
PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Shelli Rushing, Associate Planner
THRU: Tim Conklin, City Planner
DATE: February 7, 2002
ADM 01-47.00: Revision and reorganization
of General
Plan 2020
to update census data;
update the community facilities section; add
an
annexation
policy;
and
reorganize for easier use.
On December 19, 1995, the City Council adopted General Plan 2020 with Resolution No. 147-
95. Part of the resolution required that major revisions of the General Plan be scheduled every
five years. In June 2000, the General Plan 2020 Subcommittee met to revise the plan, as required
in Resolution 147-95. After holding eight public hearings, the City Council adopted the 2000
revision of General Plan 2020 on December 19, 2000 with Resolution Number 170-00 A -C.
In Spring 2001, 2000 Census data for Arkansas cities was published on the U.S. Bureau of the
Census web site. The data indicated significant changes in population and housing that are
important to planning activities and staff began updating the census data in the general plan. In
doing so, staff determined that the Community Facilities section was in need of an update and
proceeded with the revision.
In researching the procedures for adopting an annexation policy, it appeared that an Annexation
Element was often included in a city's general plan. Since General Plan 2020 was already
undergoing a revision, it was determined an appropriate time to draft a policy to include in the
plan. Finally, the revisions and updates resulted in some reorganization of the plan to case the
task of finding information.
In Summer 2001, staff notified the Planning Commission that these revisions were taking place
and would be presented to them at the end of the year. The revised General Plan 2020 was
distributed to the Planning Commission at the December 13, 2001 planning commission retreat.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the revised and reorganized General
Plan 2020.
H:1 USERSIC0MM0NUHF.LLAS£AFFRF.P0R7SI GENERAL PLAN. IVPD
a
FINDINGS
40
General Plan 2020 has been reorganized into the following outline:
Part A. Existing Conditions
Chapter 1 Setting and Organization of the General Plan
Chapter 2 Community Context
Chapter 3 Population Characteristics
Chapter 4 Housing
Chapter 5 Employment and Income
Chapter 6 Community Services and Facilities
Chapter 7 Planning Constraints and Resources
Chapter 8 Circulation
Part B. Plans and Policies
Chapter 9 Future Land Use Plan
Chapter 10 Master Street Plan
Chapter 11 Annexation Policies
The following changes and revisions have been made:
• Census data for the following items were revised: population, gender, age, ethnic origin,
households and group quarters, housing occupancy and tenure.
• The
following
data was not
yet published
by the 2000 Census at the time of the revision
and
continues
to present the
1990 census
data: educational attainment, value of owner
occupied housing, gross rent, occupation, and income.
• Employment and income data was expanded with data for Fayetteville as well as the
Metropolitan Statistical Areas, which consists of Benton and Washington Counties,
provided by sources other than the 2000 Census.
• Population projections remain the same as calculated in 1995, but projections for 2000
were compared with the actual population.
• The planning area boundary was revised to reflect recent changes.
• The Community Facilities section was updated with the assistance of the various
departments and a section on the library was added.
• The Circulation and Master Street Plan were slightly reorganized, but no text changes
were made.
• The guiding policies and
implementation strategies were incorporated into the
Future
Land Use Plan, however,
no changes or additions were
made to the policies or
strategies.
• An
annexation element
was
added to establish guiding policies
for annexing property into
the
city of Fayetteville.
The
annexation element is attached.
//AUSERSICOAIA/ONISHELLASTAFFREPOR7SIGENERAL PLAN. WPD
as
Go
n&tiat o [atltl.�
11 ANNEXATION
11.1 Purpose
Annexation is the inclusion of previously unincorporated lands within the city limits. Annexation
has benefits to the residents of the annexed area as well as to the City. The residents gain access
to urban services, such as enhanced police and fire protection, and have a voice in city
government. The City gains the ability to control development and extend boundaries in a logical
manner.
The purpose of this planning element is to take a more active approach toward annexations by
identifying potential annexation areas and establishing annexation policies. The annexation
policies will guide evaluation of future annexation proposals. The policies are designed to ensure
that public services, infrastructure, and utility extension is properly addressed in order to manage
growth. The potential annexation areas can become part of the city when annexation policies are
met.
11.2 History and Trends
The original town was incorporated in 1870 with approximately 1200 acres. Since incorporation,
the city has made 115 annexations, totaling 28,903.16 acres. Annexation activity was relatively
slow until the 1940s, when over 2,500 acres were annexed with 10 annexations. During the
1950s, almost the same number of annexations took place, however, the total land area annexed
was significantly smaller than in the 1940s. By the 1960s, annexation activity increased
dramatically, with 42 annexations bringing over 18,000 acres into the city limits. Annexation
numbers dropped in 1970 and stayed steady until the 1990s, when the number of annexations
tripled from the 1980s. In 2000, the city contained 45 square miles.
TABLE 11.1
ANNEXATION HISTORY
'Fayetteville (1870 - 2001)
Time Period
No. of Annexations
Total Acres
1870
Original Town
1,202.48
1910
I
160.57
1932
I
83.60
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
I1-1
M
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE 11.1
ANNEXATION HISTORY
Fayetteville (1870-2001)
Source: City of Fayetteville, GIS. August 2001
The Historical Annexation Map is located in Appendix B. •. I
1940- 1949.
10
2,572.05
1952-1958
9
1,194.66
1960- 1969
42
18,250.55
1970-1978
12
1,347.14
1980-1988
9
1,591.87
1990- 1999
27
2,106.70-
2000 - (Aug) 2001
4
393.54
Total
115
28,903.16
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-2
a
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE 11.2.
SIX LARGEST ANNEXATIONS
Fayetteville (1870-2001)
Ordinance Number
Acres .
Year
889
1,765
1946
1258
1,489.24
1961
1274
2,138.61
1961
1479
1,267.69
1966
1556
11,376.66
1967
2857
1,286.45
1982
Source: City of Fayetteville, GIS, August, 200/
Approximately 60 percent of the total annexations can be attributed to six single annexations.
Each of these annexations included more than 1,000 acres. Four of those six annexation occurred
during the 1960s. The most significant annexation was in 1967 that added over 11,000 acres to
the city limits.
Until 1960, the number of persons per acre remained relatively high, but decreased between 1940
and 1960. The significant drop in persons per acre from 3.9 in 1960 to 1.3 in 1970 is reflective of
the significant land area annexed during this time. The trend of decreasing persons per acre
reversed in 1980 and increased over the next two decades. By 2000, the persons per acre was 2.2.
70
,60
50
40
30
20
10
0
;FIGURE 11.1
'LAND AREA AND. POPULATION
FAyettevi l le -(1940-2000)
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
Acres
,Population
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-3
• 0
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
TABLE 11.3
POPULATION VS. LAND AREA
•Fayetteville (1940-2000)
Year
Population
Land Area
Persons
Per Acre
'Persons
Percent Change
Acres
Percent
Change
1940
8,212
--
1,446.65
--
5.6
1950
17,017
107.2%
4,018.70
177.79%
4.2
1960
20,274 .
19.1%
5,213.36
29.73%
3.9
1970
30,729
61.7%
23,463.91
350.1%
1.3
1980
36,668
19.1%
24,811.05
5.74%
1.5
1990
42,247
15.0%
26,402.92
6.42%
1.6
2000
58,047
37.9%
26,756.46
7.98%
2.2
Source: 2010 General Plan Addendum: City of Fayetteville, G/S. August 200/
11.3 State Statutes on Annexation
Arkansas Statutes
Title 14, Chapter 40 of the state statute discusses annexation. Annexations can be initiated by a
municipality or by property owners.
A municipality can annex contiguous lands, lands surrounded by the municipality, and land
contiguous and in adjacent counties. To annex any contiguous lands, the governing body must
adopt an ordinance, passed by two-thirds of the governing body and hold an election of the
people. Those lands must meet one of the following criteria:
• Platted and held for sale or use as municipal lots;
• Whether platted or not, if the lands are held to be sold as suburban property;
• When the lands famish the abode for a densely settled community or represent the actual
growth of the municipality beyond its legal boundary;
• When the lands arc needed for any proper mtunicipal purposes such as for the extension of
needed police regulation; or
• When they are valuable by reason of their adaptability for prospective municipal uses.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-4
El
0
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Contiguous lands must not be annexed if they meet either of the following criteria:
Have a fair market value at the time of adoption of the ordinance of lands used only for
agricultural or horticultural purposes and the highest and best use of the land is for
agricultural or horticultural purposes; or
Are lands upon which a new community is to be constructed with funds guaranteed in
whole or in part by the federal government under Title IV of the Housing and Urban
Development Act of 1968 or under Title VII of the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1970.
To annex land surrounded by a municipality, the governing body can propose.an ordinance to
annex the property. Again, the lands must meet the criteria listed above. A public hearing must
be held within 60 days of the proposed ordinance. A majority of the governing body must
approve the annexation for it to become effective.
Property owners in areas contiguous and adjacent to a municipality may request annexation. They
can apply with a petition of the majority of land owners in the area, if the majority of the total
number of owners own more than one-half of the acreage affected.
11.4 Potential Annexation Areas
The potential annexation areas should be identified by the City using the following criteria.
• Areas that are already urban in character.
Areas than can be developed at urban densities.
• Immediate areas are those that are peninsulas or islands, where municipal services have
already been extended.
• Vacant lands that are subject to development pressure.
• Areas where urban services are already provided.
• Areas where urban services are needed.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-5
a
0
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
11.5 Unincorporated Islands
To clear up boundaries for ease in providing services, such as fire and police, unincorporated
islands need to be incorporated. The City has identified 14 land areas that are surrounded by the
city limits. All of the candidates, with the exception of three, are indicated on the Future Land
Use Plan as residential. Of the three exceptions, one is planned for Private Open Space and the
other two are for University, which are the properties' existing land use. If all of the
unincorporated islands are annexed, the land area would increase by 1,351.73 acres for a total of
28,108.19 acres in Fayetteville.
TABLE 11.4
ANNEXATION CANDIDATES - UNINCORPORATED ISLANDS
Fayetteville (2001)
Candidate
Acres
Existing Land Use
Future Land Use
1
26.72
Residential
Residential
2
163.94
Residential
Residential
3
4.38
Vacant
Residential
4
1.00
Residential
Residential
5
3.20
Residential
Residential
6
12.23
Vacant
Residential
7
.025
Vacant/Cemetery
Residential
8
280
Residential
Residential
9
75.75
Residential
Residential
10
74.92
Residential/Open space
Private Open Space
II
700
University
University
12
0.75
University
University
13
0.51
Residential
Residential
14
8.30
Residential
Residential
TOTAL
1,351.73
Source: City of Fayetteville, GIS. Annexation Candidate Maps, 2001.
Maps of the annexation candidates are in Appendix C.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-6
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
•11.6 Annexation Guiding Policies
Boundaries
II 1 1.6.a Annex existing islands and peninsulas and do not annex areas that would create an
island or peninsula.
11.6.b Proposed annexation area must be adjacent, or contiguous, to city limits.
11.6.c Areas should either include or exclude entire subdivisions or neighborhoods, not
divide.
1 1.6.d Boundaries for annexed areas should follow natural corridors.
11.6.e Timing of services within annexation areas should be considered.
Environmentally Sensitive Areas
11.6. f Annex environmentally sensitive areas that could be impacted by development
and utilize appropriate development regulations to protect those areas.
Emergency and Public Services
11.6.g Public services must be able'to be provided efficiently in newly annexed areas.
11.6.h Annexed areas should receive the same level of service of areas already in the city
limits.
11.6.1 The ability to provide public services should be evaluated in terms of equipment,
training of personnel, number of units and response time.
Infrastructure and Utilities
11.6.j Areas currently served by utilities and other public services should be annexed.
11.6.k Proposed annexation areas should not require the upgrading of utilities to meet the
demands of development unless there is a threat to public safety.
11.6.1 Phased annexation should be initiated by the City within active annexation areas
based on planned service extensions or availability of services.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-7
w 0
• PLANS AND POLICIES •
Intergovernmental Relations
11.6.m Promote long-range planning with adjacent jurisdictions.
I I.6.n Establish agreements to address regional concerns, such as water, stormwater and
sewer.
Administration of Annexations
11.6.o Designate zoning districts for the property during the annexation process.
11.6.p An annexation study should be completed on all annexation proposals.
11.6.q Development proposals require a separate review from the annexation proposals.
11.6.r Residents should be fully informed of annexation activities.
11.6.w Encourage larger annexations to create acceptable boundaries.
11.6.t Conduct a fiscal impact assessments on large annexations.
Fayetteville, Arkansas • GENERAL PLAN 2020 • 2001 Revision
11-8
Planning Commissi
February 11, 2002
Page 41
Go
ADM 01-47.00: Administrative Item (Revision of General Plan 2020) to update
census data, the community facilities section: add an annexation policy, and reorganize
for easier use)
Estes: The next item on the agenda is also an administrative item, it is a revision
and reorganization of the General Plan 2020 to update census data, the
community facilities section and add an annexation policy and reorganize
for easier use. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
this revised and reorganized General Plan 2020. Shelli, will you be
making the presentation?
Rushing: Yes I will. Good evening. I would like to briefly go over some of the
changes and the additions to General Plan 2020, just to highlight a few of
the things that came out of the census 2000 data as well as some
recommended additions or changes. This is a good time to go over the
general purpose of our general plan 2020. This has not changed but I do
want to go over this. Basically our General Plan establishes long range
policies and implementation strategies that will help us manage and guide
future growth and development. The time period for the General Plan
started in 1995 and lasts through 2020. The plan was adopted in 1995 and
was updated in 2000 as required by ordinance. It is required that we
update that every five years. The General Plan also provides policies and
strategies to be used when changes in land use are proposed, when new
developments are being planned or when changes to existing development
regulations are being considered. I am going to go over a couple of the
reasons of why we are recommending some updates and revisions to the
General Plan. Last spring the 2000 census data became available which
changed our numbers for population and housing. They showed a
significant increase in our population and a couple of trends in housing
that we felt like it was important to get into our general plan. Also, when
the plan was updated in 2000 the community facilities section was not
updated and since we are making the revisions at this time we thought that
it would be a good time to go ahead and make those changes at this point.
We also have decided that the city wanted to adopt an annexation policy
and that including that in the general plan would be the best place to put
that policy so we have done that in this revision. Since so many changes
were being made we thought it would be a good time to go ahead and
reorganize the plan so it would be easier to find information that you are
looking for. The outline of the plan has changed. There are two sections.
The first is the existing conditions. The second is the plans and policies.
Part A is the existing conditions and it includes the setting of an
organization, that is the general plan itself, community context, those two
sections did not change. The following few sections did: Population
characteristics, housing, employment and income and community surfaces
and facilities. That section was updated by contacting the various
Planning Commisside
February 11, 2002
Page 42
Go
departments and asking them to revise that section of the plan. Planning
Constraints and Resources, Circulation Chapters did not change. Part B is
the plans and policies and that includes the future land use plan which did
not change. All of that information stayed the same. The Master Street
Plan which also stayed the same and the Annexation Policy which is a
new addition to the General Plan. These have not changed but I wanted to
go over them since we are reviewing our General Plan. Some of the
principles of the General Plan include creating a sense of place and
connectivity within neighborhoods and community, containing and
strengthening the emergence of multiple activity centers, enhancing and
revitalizing older urban areas, relating the natural and built environments
through community design, increasing transportation efficiency, and
increasing affordable housing. Let me go over a few of the key findings.
I will do that for Population and Housing. First of all, the 2000 population
was 58,047 persons, this is an increase of almost 38% from 1990. That is
pretty consistent with the trends for the Northwest Arkansas region which
includes Washington and Benton counties. The region increased by
47.5% during that same time period. Fayetteville has a median age of
26.9, a median age is calculated by half of the population is under that age
the rest of the population is over that age. It is pretty low in comparison to
the rest of the region. Washington County has a median age of 30.8 and
Benton County has a median age of 35.3. We are pretty consistent with
1990, we have slightly more males than females, that didn't change much
over the ten year time period. When you look at ethnic origin, Caucasians
continue to represent the largest portion of the population, 86.5% but this
percent of total population has decreased during the 1990's. It was over
90% in 1990. A lot of that is due to the increase in the African American
population and the Hispanic population. African Americans represent
5.1% of the population of Fayetteville. This number has doubled since
1990. The number of Hispanics has tripled and represents 4.9% of all
persons in the city. The 1995 General Plan made projections for
population from 1995 to 2020. The projected population for 2,000 was
56,429. This is 1,600 less than what the actual population was so we were
off slightly on our projections. We did not change those numbers in the
plan though. The projections stay the same as they were in 1995. When
we looked at housing we found that the vacancy rate decreased from 10.3
in 1990 to 6.6 in 2000. We find that renter occupied units outnumbered
our owner occupied units by over 2000 units. The persons per occupied
unit is 2.21 and this is slightly less than the rest of the region. The number
of duplex and multi -family units increased at a greater rate than the single
family units did. This table just shows you a breakdown of the residential
housing types built during the 1990s. You will see that the single family
units, we added almost 4,000. Duplex and multi -family units we added
approximately 4,300. The percent of single family verses duplex is
starting to shift a little bit due to the increase of duplex and multi -family
Planning Commissic at
February 11, 2002
Page 43
construction. The highest building permit activity in the I990s occurred
between 1993 and 1995 when we had approximately 3,400 building
permits. During the 1990s 48% of all units built were single family units,
13% were duplex and 39% were multi -family. One of the things that we
do when we look at housing is to look at the age of the housing and we
found that '/. of all dwelling units were built in the 1990s but we also
found that 50% of all housing is more than 20 years old in the city. I am
going to go over a few findings of employment income. I do want to point
out that the 2000 census data for employment income will be out this
spring. The numbers that we are using here are from different sources
than the U.S. census. They come from economic surveys that were
conducted in 1997 but since we are updating other information we wanted
to try to bring this as up to date as we could. In Fayetteville we find that
retail trade accounts for 1/4 of all of the establishments. The largest
number of employees are in retail trades as well as manufacturing.
Employment in Fayetteville is projected to be at about 45,000 people by
the year 2020. The reason we only give you a projection here is because
we do not have that actual number from the census yet. Hopefully we will
have that this spring. The data that we looked at looks mostly at the
metropolitan statistical area which is Benton County and Washington
County so we wanted to include some of that information. It might give us
an idea of what is going on in the region. The MSA labor force increased
by 49,000 employees between 1990 and 2000 which is a 35% increase.
The unemployment rate dropped from 3.8 in 1990 to 2.1 in 2000. The per
capita personal income was $24,000 which is an increase of almost 52%
from 1989. That is just an overview of some of the data that we updated
in the General Plan. I wanted to go over the guiding policies and
implementation strategies just to refresh your memory with this. Those
listed here represent the categories in the Future Land Use Plan except for
the last three, which is the Historic District, Environmental Resources and
Community Character. None of those categories changed. All of the
policies and strategies remained the same. The newest part of the General
Plan is the annexation chapter. The purpose of this is to take a proactive
approach towards annexations by identifying potential annexation areas
and establishing annexation policies and criteria for reviewing
annexations. A quick outline of the annexation chapter, we go over the
purpose of the chapter, which you just saw. We discuss some history in
terms of annexation in the city, identify some guidelines for what would
be good to control annexation areas, identify the unincorporated islands
and provide those annexation policies which is really the meat of the new
chapter. A couple of guidelines when looking at potential annexation
areas. They are areas that already urban in character, areas that can be
developed at urban densities, needed areas are those that are peninsulas or
islands where municipal services have already been extended, vacant lands
that are subject to development pressure, areas where urban services are
Planning Commission as
February 11, 2002
Page 44
already provided or need to be provided. The guiding policies are broken
down into categories. The first is the boundaries, the second is the
environmentally sensitive areas. Next is how we provide emergency and
public services. Infrastructure and utilities to those new areas, establishing
some policies for dealing with the county and adjacent cities and how we
would administer those annexations. That concludes my presentation, I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Estes: Thank you Shelli for that very informative presentation. Commissioners,
do you have any questions?
Hoffman: I just have an observation, and I want to thank you for telling me how
many more people are going to be living here by the year 2020. 1 think
that kind of puts a lot of things in perspective for me with regard to how
we should be approaching planning and the 2020 plan.
Mart: I think we should also make it clear, we actually had this presentation at
our planning retreat and had a lot of discussion around these items at this
time. I actually think having an annexation policy is a great idea and
something that definitely should be in our 2020 plan. I appreciate Shelli
and the staff working on that.
Estes: Thank you Shelli. I know that involved a lot of work and thank you for
your presentation.
Conklin: Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. I would like to thank Shelli
Rushing for doing all this work. This will be very valuable. We get
phone calls every week from individuals who are interested in where
Fayetteville is at today and in the future with regard to population, our
plans and policies. It will be very beneficial. The annexation policy is
something that came up last summer and we have developed that and we
have researched and looked at what other communities have done with
regard to adopting an annexation policy. One interesting note, I would
just like to point out is that the unincorporated islands, those areas that are
within Fayetteville, completely surrounded by Fayetteville, we currently
have a total of eleven of those areas with about 1342 acres. It is very
important in a community where we pride ourselves on protecting trees
and the environment that we have an ability to regulate these areas that are
completely surrounded by Fayetteville because the alternative is stepping
over into other communities and other jurisdictions that do not regulate
and protect these resources like we do in Fayetteville so that is something
that we hope to bring forward in the future once the City Council adopts
this annexation policy. Thank you.
Planning Commissid_-- as
February 11, 2002
Page 45
Public Comment:
Estes: Is there any member of the audience who would like to comment on ADM
01-47, the revision and reorganization of General Plan 2020? Seeing
none, I will bring it back to the Commission for discussions, motions?
Motion:
Bunch: I move that we as a Planning Commission approve the revised and
reorganized General Plan 2020.
Allen: I'll second.
Estes: We have a motion by Commissioner Bunch, we have a second by
Commissioner Allen, is that correct?
Allen: Yes.
Estes: Is there any discussion? Renee, would you call the roll please?
Roll Call: Upon the completion of roll call the motion to approve ADM 01-47.00
was approved by a vote of 8-0-0.
Estes: The motion passes by a unanimous vote.
STAFF REVIEW FORM
X AGENDA REQUEST
CONTRACT REVIEW
GRANT REVIEW
For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of March 5, 2002.
FROM:
Tim Conklin Planning Urban Development
Name Division Department
ACTION REQUIRED: To approve a resolution for ADM 01-47.00 to update census data;
the community facilities section; add an annexation policy; and reorganize the -
General Plan 2020 for easier use.
COST TO CITY:
$
Cost of this Request
Account Number
Project Number
Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name
Funds Used To Date
Remaining Balance
Program Name
Fund
BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item _ Budget Adjustment Attached
Budget Manager Administrative. Services Director
CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY:
Accounting Ma ger
City Attorney
Purchasing Officer
Date Internal Auditor
Date ADA Coordinator
Date
Date
Date
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommended approval and on February 11, 2002 the
Fayetteville Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 for approval.
Division Head Date Cross Reference
D to
2�
Date
abate
New Item: Yes
Prev Ord/Res 0:
Orig Contract Date:
Orig Contract Number:
FAYETTEVItLE
THE CITY OF EAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
To: Tim Conklin, City Planner
From: Heather Woodruff, City Clerk
Date: March 21, 2002
Please find attached a copy of Resolution No. 50-02 approving the General Plan 2020. The
original will be microfilmed and filed with the City Clerk.
cc: Nancy Smith, Internal Audit
Clarice Pearman, Codifier