380 replies to this topic

[strmchsr77]

NWAnewby, on Dec 5 2006, 10:24 AM, said:

Wow!  I am new to Fayetteville and am truly impressed that DPZ has made it here.  I've visited Seaside in FL and used to live in the DC area near Kentlands.  They are cool developments!!  I think it would be a fresh idea here and would add even more charm to this college town.  TND fits perfectly here, as noted by the success of Charleston Place, and the Noch/Alexander developments in town.  Too bad they aren't infill, but I guess it's one baby step at a time for the council.   I'll keep checking on the updates.  Good luck!

Welcome to Urban Planet NWAnewby.  Yeah, this is a fairly new concept to the area.  The first large scale New Urbanism was Harbor Meadows in S-dale but since then there has been close 5-10 announced just in Fayetteville.  Most are "greenfield" but Ruskin is going to be a great infill project.

[Mith242]

Yeah welcome to the forum NWAnewby.  Has anyone heard how things went with the Planning Commission?  That and I was wondering does anyone think perhaps one of the reasons the city isn't approving this is because it's not that they don't want density but they don't want density near Mt Sequoyah?  I don't mean to stir up anything here, but it does seem that some city officials seem to be in a way 'protecting' that area and the residents there seem to get their way perhaps a bit more than residents in other areas of the city.

[Ruskin]

Mith242, on Dec 5 2006, 03:21 PM, said:

Yeah welcome to the forum NWAnewby.  Has anyone heard how things went with the Planning Commission?  That and I was wondering does anyone think perhaps one of the reasons the city isn't approving this is because it's not that they don't want density but they don't want density near Mt Sequoyah?  I don't mean to stir up anything here, but it does seem that some city officials seem to be in a way 'protecting' that area and the residents there seem to get their way perhaps a bit more than residents in other areas of the city.

The Planning Commission meeting is this coming Monday, December 11th at 5:30.  Please come on by.

I agree with your assessment of Mt. Sequoyah.

[NWAnewby]

Ruskin, on Dec 5 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

The Planning Commission meeting is this coming Monday, December 11th at 5:30.  Please come on by.

I agree with your assessment of Mt. Sequoyah.

Sounds like a tough crowd--or simply a bit biased towards Mt. Sequoyah.  I'll try to stop by the meeting to show my support as a potential homeowner in Ruskin Heights.  I'd love to live there!

[Mith242]

Ruskin, on Dec 5 2006, 04:25 PM, said:

The Planning Commission meeting is this coming Monday, December 11th at 5:30.  Please come on by.

I agree with your assessment of Mt. Sequoyah.

Oops sorry, I got the wrong date.

[NWAnewby]

Mith242, on Dec 5 2006, 08:19 PM, said:

Oops sorry, I got the wrong date.

I watched the city council meeting tonight where our New Urbanist-ignorant council members voted to amend the future land use map to make sure the area where Ruskin Heights is located is not zoned appropriately for the TND.  I am fuming now because I have lost faith in their ability to follow through with their own decision to implement 2025.  Their reasoning was based on the "50+ phone calls and emails in opposition to the development."--Brenda Thiel & Swity Reynolds.  I have already emailed them all voicing my support for the plan and will call Swifty tomorrow because he has no email.  I hope next week's meeting isn't as ill-fated as tonight!  My love for Fayetteville is slowing diminishing based on my disrespect for our council.  

[strmchsr77]

NWAnewby, on Dec 5 2006, 09:14 PM, said:

I watched the city council meeting tonight where our New Urbanist-ignorant council members voted to amend the future land use map to make sure the area where Ruskin Heights is located is not zoned appropriately for the TND.  I am fuming now because I have lost faith in their ability to follow through with their own decision to implement 2025.  Their reasoning was based on the "50+ phone calls and emails in opposition to the development."--Brenda Thiel & Swity Reynolds.  I have already emailed them all voicing my support for the plan and will call Swifty tomorrow because he has no email.  I hope next week's meeting isn't as ill-fated as tonight!  My love for Fayetteville is slowing diminishing based on my disrespect for our council.  

Get used to the council disappointing you.  It happens almost everytime they get together.  Believe me!  

[Mith242]

Yeah the residents of that area seem to have a lot of clout, and they in particular seem very resistant to any change.  These are the same people are made a big fuss over E Fay Jones Butterfly House being converted into a synagogue.

[jiggyK]

Mith242, on Dec 6 2006, 05:09 AM, said:

Yeah the residents of that area seem to have a lot of clout, and they in particular seem very resistant to any change.  These are the same people are made a big fuss over E Fay Jones Butterfly House being converted into a synagogue.

yeah, they embody what i consider to be the core of fayetteville, and i believe they are responsible for much of what i love about fayetteville.  the pro-tree attitude, the desire for limited signage, and the sense of small town community come to mind.  they have guided fayetteville well.  but fayetteville is changing fast.  the 2025 plan is a smart plan for the most part, from what i can tell.  and i consider this development to be one that reeks of 2025 plan ideology.  but in order to follw this plan they are going to have to do things differently from how they were done in the past.  sadly, it appears they haven't learned that yet.

[Mith242]

I know some areas of Fayetteville do need to be protected.  You obviously would put some huge development right next door to the Washington-Willow Historical District.  But I do get a bit frustrated when people seem all for these changes until you try to do it near where they live.

[NWAnewby]

So true.  The Ruskin Heights developers even used some of the neighbors ideas in their final plans designed at the charette (especially more trees than required by the tree ordinance), but it doesn't seem to be enough.  Unfortunately, not many, if any, of the City Council and Planning Commission members attended the public charette in July to learn first hand what Ruskin Heights aims to be.  I hope that these developers can convince the powers that be that their project IS Fayetteville 2025 and will be a huge boon to the city.

[cocothief]

I have been watching some of the planning commission meeting about this development on the cable access channel.

The city doesn't seem as unreasonable as I first thought.  There do seem to be some legitemate concerns about traffic, etc in the general area, particularly turning left onto Mission Blvd.

Still, I don't think this is anything that cannot be addressed by the addition of a traffic light at one of the access points along Mission.  The way some on the PC talk about this development, they don't seem to understand that it will not happen overnight, and that it will gradually be built out.

Traffic in Fayetteville, while worse than 5-10 years ago, still is nothing compared to big city traffic.  Mission needs to be widened.  Pushing development further and further out of town is NOT the way to avoid traffic congestion.  I wish someone on the PC recognized that.

I really liked what I heard about this development from the developers during those meetings, and the comparisons to developments in Pasadena, California from early last century.

This project needs to happen.  I wish there were four or five projects happening like this in the city.

If it were in MBY, I would support it fully.  I don't live on the mountain, though...

P.S.:  One of the Planning Commissioners referred condescendingly to this development as "spot zoning".

How else do they think they will achieve the goals of CityPlan2025.  Aren't all PZDs spot zoning to a degree??

If this commissioner wants to see spot zoning, he need only drive ten miles north to Springdale to see some truly bad spot zoning.  

Sometimes it seems like these people just like to feel powerful and don't really see the big picture with regards to overall city development.

Edited by cocothief, 08 December 2006 - 09:18 AM.

[strmchsr77]

Will they be adding a turn lane onto Mission in front of the project or a light?

[NWAnewby]

strmchsr77, on Dec 8 2006, 09:19 AM, said:

Will they be adding a turn lane onto Mission in front of the project or a light?

I think it's a state highway isn't it?  If so, who is responsible for implementing change and how can it be done?  

Having lived in Washington, DC, the traffic complaints in Fayetteville make me laugh!  How long does anyone turning left onto Mission really have to wait--a few minutes?  I've sat on Sycamore attempting to turn left onto Garland and have waited 5+ minutes.  New Urbanist design will cut down on traffic because of the mixed use of the land.  I think Ruskin Heights is the way to go, and I hope the naysayers are proven wrong.  These developers seem so excited to implement City Plan 2025.  Keep up the fight Ruskin!

[strmchsr77]

NWAnewby, on Dec 8 2006, 11:19 AM, said:

I think it's a state highway isn't it?  If so, who is responsible for implementing change and how can it be done?  

Having lived in Washington, DC, the traffic complaints in Fayetteville make me laugh!  How long does anyone turning left onto Mission really have to wait--a few minutes?  I've sat on Sycamore attempting to turn left onto Garland and have waited 5+ minutes.  New Urbanist design will cut down on traffic because of the mixed use of the land.  I think Ruskin Heights is the way to go, and I hope the naysayers are proven wrong.  These developers seem so excited to implement City Plan 2025.  Keep up the fight Ruskin!

Agreed, traffic in NWA is getting worse but it is nothing like most major cities and I think that we have a long way to go before we can compare ourselves.  But are we worse than other cities our size?

[Mith242]

cocothief, on Dec 8 2006, 09:00 AM, said:

I have been watching some of the planning commission meeting about this development on the cable access channel.

The city doesn't seem as unreasonable as I first thought.  There do seem to be some legitemate concerns about traffic, etc in the general area, particularly turning left onto Mission Blvd.

Still, I don't think this is anything that cannot be addressed by the addition of a traffic light at one of the access points along Mission.  The way some on the PC talk about this development, they don't seem to understand that it will not happen overnight, and that it will gradually be built out.

Traffic in Fayetteville, while worse than 5-10 years ago, still is nothing compared to big city traffic.  Mission needs to be widened.  Pushing development further and further out of town is NOT the way to avoid traffic congestion.  I wish someone on the PC recognized that.

I really liked what I heard about this development from the developers during those meetings, and the comparisons to developments in Pasadena, California from early last century.

This project needs to happen.  I wish there were four or five projects happening like this in the city.

If it were in MBY, I would support it fully.  I don't live on the mountain, though...

P.S.:  One of the Planning Commissioners referred condescendingly to this development as "spot zoning".

How else do they think they will achieve the goals of CityPlan2025.  Aren't all PZDs spot zoning to a degree??

If this commissioner wants to see spot zoning, he need only drive ten miles north to Springdale to see some truly bad spot zoning.  

Sometimes it seems like these people just like to feel powerful and don't really see the big picture with regards to overall city development.

Thanks for the update.  I agree with you.  It does sound like there can be some negative aspects to this development, but like you said pushing it to the edge of the city limits doesn't help anything.  Maybe what some of this boils down to is with mixed use neighborhoods and such will people leave their vehicles behind to at least some degree?

[cowbreath]

strmchsr77, on Dec 8 2006, 11:55 AM, said:

Agreed, traffic in NWA is getting worse but it is nothing like most major cities and I think that we have a long way to go before we can compare ourselves.  But are we worse than other cities our size?

Our city traffic infrastructure is very poor because of a lack of east to west roads.  This is largely due to our topography with the North-South hills.  It is a growing problem they need to address anyways.   Traffic can't be a issue with this development unless our city board members are not progressive in their thoughts towards city growth.

I have yet to really hear a reason why this is so bad to implement.  Can anyone explain it?  Obviously I've heard that some power peoples are not liking change close to them, but it is infill not a landfill, right?  If there are waste water runoff issues I think that could be handled.  I think the positives of adding character and new urbanism sensibilities is something worth trying.  Fayetteville CAN stay small but it will need some changes to get by.  

In Istanbul, Turkey, I can't believe how many towers they had on hillsides.  Knowing a project manager there I knew that infrastructure issues are always a concern over there.  Obviously America may never come to that but I think we can allow a few more houses developed over there.  To be charged 10% sales tax and to not have these things be added because of lack of infrastructure would be gross negligence on their part.

[Mith242]

NWAnewby, on Dec 8 2006, 11:19 AM, said:

I think it's a state highway isn't it?  If so, who is responsible for implementing change and how can it be done?  

Having lived in Washington, DC, the traffic complaints in Fayetteville make me laugh!  How long does anyone turning left onto Mission really have to wait--a few minutes?  I've sat on Sycamore attempting to turn left onto Garland and have waited 5+ minutes.  New Urbanist design will cut down on traffic because of the mixed use of the land.  I think Ruskin Heights is the way to go, and I hope the naysayers are proven wrong.  These developers seem so excited to implement City Plan 2025.  Keep up the fight Ruskin!

I agree, it's really a shame that someone finally really tries to implement what Dover-Kohl said and then the city gives them a hard time about it.  As far as traffic goes I agree.  I think what makes it bad is that people can easily remember how little trouble they had getting around just a few years ago.  One think that is perhaps a bit off topic.  I wish people would plan ahead where they are going.  I realize there are times you just have to make a left hand turn but so many times left hand turns can be avoided or done on a less busy area.

[Ruskin]

Great comments and questions:

On the traffic issue, the City has sent a letter to the State supporting our proposal to install a traffic light and turning lane (at our cost) on Mission.  According to our traffic study, which the City supported in their letter, the traffic service level on Mission would be much higher with these two improvements AFTER we fully develop the property.  We are pushing to get approval as quickly as possible so we can help the traffic issue for everyone.

We plan to stick to our guns on the central New Urbanist philosophies, but we are making some modest plan changes to respond to neighbor concerns.  We have pushed back our Planning Commission date to January 8th to make these changes and to try and make progress on the Mission improvements.

By the way, we are having an open house on site this Sunday from 1 to 4.  Everyone is invited!!

[thewizard16]

Ruskin, on Dec 8 2006, 04:17 PM, said:

Great comments and questions:

On the traffic issue, the City has sent a letter to the State supporting our proposal to install a traffic light and turning lane (at our cost) on Mission.  According to our traffic study, which the City supported in their letter, the traffic service level on Mission would be much higher with these two improvements AFTER we fully develop the property.  We are pushing to get approval as quickly as possible so we can help the traffic issue for everyone.

We plan to stick to our guns on the central New Urbanist philosophies, but we are making some modest plan changes to respond to neighbor concerns.  We have pushed back our Planning Commission date to January 8th to make these changes and to try and make progress on the Mission improvements.

By the way, we are having an open house on site this Sunday from 1 to 4.  Everyone is invited!!

That's great news, Ruskin. I hope it gets approved and this plan moves forward. I think it's a great site, will look nice there, and with a stop light, it's not going to make traffic on Mission any worse than it is now.