A public hearing notice stands near the corner of College Avenue and Township Street earlier this month at the site of a planned Arvest Bank branch.
Photo: Todd Gill, Flyer staff
Fayetteville planning commissioners are set to review plans for a new Arvest Bank branch at the southwest corner of College Avenue and Township street on the site of a long vacant car dealership.
Site plans submitted to city planning staff in April call for a 6,000-square-foot, six-lane drive-through bank that includes nearly 40 parking spaces and shared access and entry points with the neighboring Burger King restaurant.
» Download PDF site plan
The 1.92-acre lot will be the second in the area to see a major revitalization since Kum & Go opened a new, 10-pump, 5,000-square-foot gas station and convenience store at the southeast corner of the intersection.
Arvest reportedly plans to close a nearby location at 1947 N. College Ave. once the new branch is complete.
Commissioners will review the large-scale development project application during Thursday’s 9 a.m. Subdivision Committee meeting, and then again during the June 11 full Planning Commission meeting.
Looks good. Hope the old bank building becomes a restaurant or something.
Looks good? It looks like more of the same for College. Parking lots up front, building set as far back from the sidewalks as possible, and even the parking lots are completely separated from any future development that might go next to it on College or Township.
That little stretch of Township between College and Gregg could support a lot more activity if it were built to a traditional town standard instead of this suburban form, but it won’t happen when the ends are bookended by a development designed like this.
The Planning Commission should turn down this request and insist this be designed to the standards in the Community Services zoning district, instead of the old commercial districts that turned N College into what it is today. Township is too important to let the same old development style ruin it. It could be similar to Dickson or Block, but in Midtown where other neighborhoods could walk to it. When you remember it is a collector street for Colt Square, having a vision for Township takes an extra significance, and this design doesn’t advance any vision.
How else could you develop it with the setbacks required for state highways? How else could they get the building on the plan with their necessary drive thru lanes?
This looks as good as anything else that would be planned for this lot and is a vast improvement over the car lot. Further, we are seeing a business actually grow and remain on College Ave, and not closing their doors to leave another empty buildling.
New development on Township should fit within better urban standards, but you can’t dictate that on Hwy 71B.
How are the huge setbacks avoided down on South School where the Dollar General and new Grove Apt buildings put up closer to the street? I thought that was also a state highway. Isn’t it? I’d way prefer a traditional town set-up, but I’m just relived another paved eyesore of a lot is getting new grass and trees.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think state highways require special setbacks. Setbacks are measured from the edge of the right-of-way, which is often wider than the street itself, particularly on highways. The old commercial zoning districts require building setbacks, where as the Community Services district requires a build-to line, the opposite of a setback.
There are ways to design drive thru facilities so that the building can be pulled closed to the sidewalks. In fact, this design is already halfway there. If you look at the schematic you will see that the drive thru lanes are already planned to be away from the street; that’s good! Where this design goes wrong is the parking being located between the building and the sidewalk. The parking should be moved to the inside edges of the property.
Toronto has a ~20 page document of design guidelines for urban drive thrus if you are interested in seeing specific examples. It’s here: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/urbdesign/pdf/dt_udg_may31.pdf
I like what you have to say about Township. That section, and Colt Square do have a ton of potential for walkability and becoming the “block street” of midtown. Green Acres Road has similar potential, IMO.
The Dollar General and Grove bldg weren’t built on a corner.
It is much better than the derelict building and parking lot that has been there for several years. I wish everything could look like Pleasantville also but that is not always going to happen.
Since you’re a master designer and planner (and clearly have better aesthetic sense than any other), why don’t put together a proposal for us of how you would have it look. Or you can continue to just gripe about others work.
You don’t have to be a master planner to understand that the way properties are developed affects the development of properties around them. And for the record, I never said anything about the aesthetics of this project.
But to your point: I did propose specific changes. The site layout requirements of the Community Services zone would yield a distinctly different technical plat than the old commercial zone, and they are specific and straightforward to follow.
WWMPD?
“Rescue” a bike and start a protest
hey matthew can you tell us what’s happening in the committee to rework food truck regulations–what are the sticking points? thanks
This is the wrong thread for that, but we’ll be proposing a comprehensive ordinance this summer. This is a semi-urgent item because Bentonville has a big lead on us in this market.
I’ve got to side with Petty on this- why isn’t this more pedestrian friendly with parking in the back?
Where would you put the drive thru lanes then? This looks about as good as could be possibly done given the site dimensions, setbacks, and requirements all modern banks have. This is a highway corner, not downtown.
The idea that properties developed on highways can only be designed one way isn’t right. College goes through the middle of Fayetteville, and the stretch of Township that this bookends is the future anchor for a walkable midtown.
If you think buildings can’t be built close to the sidewalks on a state highway, look at any of the buildings on College near downtown. Those are built on state highways and many of them are closer than these plans show the new Arvest being; some of those downtown buildings fronting the highway are even right next to the sidewalk.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t there an overlay district over College Avenue/Hwy 71? And aren’t those buildings on College nearer downtown over 25-30-50 years old? Assume they’d be grandfathered in. And, College was a two lane street when most of those buildings were constructed.
Further, using the current city plan and zoning, that area is C-2 and requires a 50 ft setback for buildings. Same for the north side of the lot abutting Township.
I am all for buildings conforming to a more pedestrian friendly environment in the right areas, but College Avenue carries 30,000 cars per day. The development along College must take that into consideration. It’s not downtown and never will be.
I’m not certain about the answer to your first question, but I will find out.
Many of the buildings in the downtown portion of college are older, but not all of them, like the new church addition between Lafayette and College. Even the older portion of that church is built with a good setback on College, close to the sidewalk.
Now, imagine a future where the old Mountain Inn site has been developed; would you want it to be built using the same form as the development in this article? Absolutely not. This corner of Township is similarly important for making midtown walkable.
Returning to your point about many of the buildings down there being old, what’s important to see is that even though many of the closest buildings, like the old courthouse, were built so long ago, that they still work even though the street has grown.
Traditional town form isn’t broken and it works for urban highways. The proof is in examples we can see in our own town.
Re: The old buildings still work even though the street has grown.
They still work because there is no choice. The part of college by the old courthouse and downtown is only four lanes without a turn lane when the rest of College has a turn lane. This can seriously back up traffic at times and cause wrecks. The reason there is no turn lane is because the buildings were built close to the road and they had no room to expand the street. This also makes the sidewalk really close to the road and it feels dangerous walking on some of those sidewalks when you have a building close on one side and 4 lane road close on the other. Having the building set back from the roads makes it possible to expand roads in the future.
JR: “Having the building set back from the roads makes it possible to expand roads in the future.”
You are absolutely right, but College at this intersection doesn’t need to be any bigger. Ever.
PS – At the chuch, on the NW corner of the Dickson/College intersection, College has a five-lane cross-section. The median is located within the turning lane. So it really is apples to apples.
Yeah Petty, how dare you want buildings close to the road?
I envision a future where all of the pesky close-together buildings downtown and on Dickson are replaced with ample upfront parking and room for 6, even 8 lanes of expanded roads!!
Talk about a wonderful vision for a city. Who needs an actual city when you can get from point A to point B in your car without having to slow down or be bothered to look at any architecture?
Drive thru to drive thru, turn-lane to turn-lane, we’ll live our lives at 45 mph. Hell, curbs are a waste of money, and so are trees. Just pave the entire city. People can walk on pavement the same as cars!!!!11
I envision a future where businesses and companies still want to come and build in Fayetteville and are not turned off because of all the regulations and being turned down for building requests because of where they want to put their parking. Maybe I should instead envision a future with vacant car dealerships and businesses.
The Arvest downtown has parking and a drive through in the back and looks hideous from the rear. I think the main problem is having a “one size fits all” architectually designed building. Instead of having an architect truly “design” for that particular location. If the architect did specifically design for that location, then it is of a cookie cutter mindset with little imagination.
Petty gave some good indications on how it could be differently designed. My, my this certainly is a viscous set of responses to a measured, well thought out difference of opinion. Why shouldn’t there be new design standards put in place for College? It looks blighted as it stands now.
Agreed. Dude got flat out attacked. I wish the city planners would consider these suggestions. I still hate the Kum & Go.
Why would it matter if the building is close to the sidewalk? If you walk there can’t you just walk to the parking lot? Also not really many folks walking in that part of town, so why all the fuss?
Rome wasn’t built in a day, but it was built. One step at a time.
By the way my “WWMPD”, was totally meant as a joke…not an attack. I think it’d be a great campaign sign…feel free to use it Matt.
I laughed the first time. If the hipster vote turns out for me again, they can use it ironically.
Just curious Mr. Petty; why would that be “ironic”?
It’s a dumb meta joke made at hipsters’ expense (who presumably do many things “ironically”) where the imprecise use of the word is itself ironic. As a former hipster I find it hilarious, but I’m an odd duck.
I’m so sick of hearing the argument “well, at least it is better that what is there now”. That is a lazy cop out and the mantra of the mundane. I agree with Petty all the way. Fayetteville is better than this. A little zoning/aesthetic effort will be more than worth it in the long run. It’s not like Arvest can’t afford it.
If they are complying with the standards that are in place, as a private property owner, they should get to build it as they’ve designed it. If the standards need to be changed, it’s not fair to decide that in the middle of someone’s project. Fayetteville’s negative reputation for doing business was starting to decline. But if the council decides it can ignore existing standards to force private entities to meet a Petty standard, or a Kinion standard, or a Lewis standard, we shouldn’t be surprised when developers get fed up and go elsewhere. The council’s job is not to make it up as they go based on whether or not they like an individual design.
Petty suggested it be built to the Community Services district standards. I get what you are saying, but it’s not fair to pretend that he’s just making up completely new standards on a whim.
So what you are saying is that we don’t need a planning department at all, just a person to check a box that a design agrees with the standard in place? That should make for a nice easy job. Where do I apply?
So let the low-standard developers go somewhere else. Please let them go. Who wants them. With them gone we could have a new start on lifting College Ave. out of it’s visual squalor.
I envision a future when only the best developers get to build in Fayetteville, and not developers who could care less about the best interests of the town and people who live here.
I bank and have a mortgage through Arvest, so I’m a real “stakeholder” here, not a navel-gazer.
Physical banking is an inconvenience, and would be happy if electronic means someday eliminate all brick-and-mortar activity.
Until then, I want my bank to provide the maximum level of drive-up convenience and customer-facing infrastructure at their location, and will voice that over trivial non-customer aesthetic interests all day long.
I live in and drive, walk, and bike the streets of Fayetteville. Am I any less a “stakeholder” than you?
You live in the street? (Sorry, couldn’t resist that one.)