wmr

NWA enters the top 25 Best Performing Cities Index this year, and is in some good company: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-boom-and-bust-cities-of-2015-191725627.html#

Regarding jumping through "hoops': Fayetteville made them abide by the agreement they made less than 18 months ago about tree preservation. The end result worked out, and it's a helluva lot better than scrapping or scaling back the tree-preservation requirements, as was suggested by some of our less-intelligent council members. " Let's do away with or scale back tree-preservation requirements over this one business!" No, let's look at a nuanced approach on how both the business and the city can get what they want. I don't know the details, but it sounds like maybe Matthew Petty's suggestions were taken into consideration and a reasonable solution was found. I agree that Don Tyson Parkway will have a nice tree-lined median. They have it because Tyson Foods Inc. paid to replace the trees that the city of Springdale first put there, not because Springdale govt did it better. Fayetteville tries to use their "tree farm" and in doing so, they sacrifice uniformity in median trees. I agree that it would be nicer for them to just pay for good, large, consistent trees. Tree-lined streets are a valuable asset and we shouldn't cut corners there. I also agree about the issues around the Block & Dickson lot. It smacks of favoritism. I don't think JJ's is a good comparison, though. One was a matter of interpreting a subdivision covenant for a two-story building. The other was about a 5-story building right next to a single-family residence. Like 40 feet away. I'm still of the mind that downtown needs to grow, and a single-family homeowner between the Square and Dickson shouldn't have any expectation to have development around it be stunted. I am happy JJ's got their approval. They will be building a "form-based" type building in a C-2 zone, mainly because they chose to (partially to mitigate concerns from the neighborhood by putting the building as far away from houses as physically possible...)

According the latest City Council agenda, the VW dealership managed to retool their site plan so that the tree-mitigation issue was solved. It appears that the city didn't run away a business by sticking to its guns on tree requirements. Fayetteville gets a VW dealership, AND gets a nicer development pattern. It isn't that difficult, and people shouldn't be so quick to freak out when our council expects something "better than standard" from developers. I want Fayetteville to grow, but I also want Fayetteville to be a nice city. We can have both.

I agree, the parking change should help some. And while it is true that buildings can be built closer to the street in the old zoning, they almost never are. The reason being is that the C-2 and C-3 zones specify large setbacks from the street ROW. A local developer might use some nuance in their design, with the understanding that the city sometimes prefers buildings to front the street more. A national retailer or restaurant just sends the code requirements to their engineer in Dallas or L.A., and they lay-out the building according to the zoning specs. That's why most of the time if the zoning code says "50 foot setback", you get a "50 foot setback" and will rarely see a variance. That's why zoning for the desired outcome is important. If you don't zone for a specific "form" of development, you almost never get it. Again, I have no dog in this fight other than being a homeowner and resident of Fayetteville. I want the form and type of development that will improve the area over time. I see no evidence that form-based codes actually send businesses to other cities. I see cities around the country not much different demographically than Fayetteville require much more from developers than we require, and they still grow. Over time, those places become highly desireable because they are unique and well-built. Watch as Bentonville ups their development plan downtown to include architectural review and they continue to transform themselves into a nicer city than Fayetteville. They might not get a Cracker Barrell, but they'll get lots of good stuff we wish we had, and the reputation for being a "nice city" rather than just a sprawling mess.

You're claiming that planning commission policies regarding form-based codes drive growth to other areas. There's absolutely no evidence of that happening. You are correct that much of Fayetteville's recent growth is attributable to the growth at the university. That makes sense, because the U of A is Fayetteville's largest employer. That has always been the case in Fayetteville. Changing that has little to nothing to do with form-based codes. It has more to do with creating an evironment where people want to start and locate those employment centers. Fayetteville's biggest asset is its downtown core. The only evidence you need of that is to look at a Chamber of Commerce brochure. Do they promote the abandoned, parking-intensive crap along MLK and College, or do they feature the tight-knit streetscapes like Dickson and the Square when demonstrating the unique assets of the city? The biggest job centers are in Benton County. That has nothing to do with Planning Commission policies. It has only to do with the fact that 3 Fortune 500 companies are located to the north of Fayetteville. Those companies were all founded 50+ years ago in those cities. Buildings built according to form-based guidelines are more likely to be re-used and revamped. That is part of the reasoning behind using those codes. Older developments, like abandoned Walmarts and Fiesta Square are not seeing reinvestment. Part of the reason is that they are extremely "purpose built" and have little appeal as "places". People don't seek out vast parking lots and stripmalls for the experience of the place. The older buildings in the cities which ARE seeing reinvestment are all located in traditionally planned areas, which more resemble form-based codes. The reinvestment into downtown Springdale is about where the buildings are placed, and the "streetscape" that these buildings create. It isn't about superior architecture or historic value. It is almost solely about the arrangment pattern. The same is true for downtown Fayetteville. Desiging areas with buildings nearer the street with parking in the rear or along streets is simply more appealing to pedestrian activity. People flock to those areas because of the "experience" of walking alongside storefronts. The changes to certain areas of the city don't happen overnight. With a longterm vision of creating "streets" worth walking along and experiencing, more areas of the city will have that appeal.

Since someone mentioned Rupple Rd, that area was recently re-zoned as a compliment to the road project coming up. The entire area was rezoned using form-based codes, except for streamside areas which were zoned Residential Agriculture. Urban Thoroughfare, Community Services, etc. These are the same types of zoning the Planning Commission recommends for the Terminella land, and UT and Downtown General would allow any and all use types that any commercial project in that area could support.

They aren't so much trying to discourage suburban growth in Fayetteville as much as prevent a crappy pattern of development overall. The form-based zonings don't limit what you can build or how much parking you can build. They don't impact your using a car as you do now. The main difference you would notice as a resident is that more of the parking is to the side and to the rear of a building, rather than all stacked in front. Driving down Van Asche, you'd be looking at buildings rather than parking lots, with buildings set back 100 feet or more. Over time, that's a better-looking town than what you experience driving the stretch around Fiesta Square and Hobby Lobby on N. College Ave. The Wedington examples of form-based buildings are pretty striking. You see those buildings as you drive along the street, rather than seeing a pole sign and parking lot. I don't understand why people prefer the latter.

This simply is not true. Name one instance where a form-based zoning has caused a developer to go elsewhere. Please, show evidence. It hasn't happened. I provided several examples of projects recently built or under construction right now where form-based zonings are used. National and local companies, both. Companies build stores and restaurants in different markets all over the country, many of which have much stronger codes than anything Fayetteville has. There's literally no evidence to support your assertion. The number one determining factor of where a national company places new outlets is demographic profile. Springdale does not, nor will it ever have, better disposable income or better demographics for most retail than Fayetteville does. Rogers does, and that's why Rogers gets lots of businesses that Fayetteville doesn't. The opposite was true 20 years ago. Zoning categories have had literally nothing to do with Benton County's growth.

Most "raw land" that is being zoned to commercial use for the first time in the city gets a form-based zoning category. There are exceptions sometimes. The Walmart TRB refes to was zoned industrial so C-2 was still a down zone, but not the generally preferred zoning category. To zone a very large plot of land from agriculture to c-2 and c-3 would be unusual for Fayetteville at this point. All of the new zoning along Rupple Rd extension is form-based, for example.

Freddys on Wedington - form based. http://s3-media3.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/OFjxZbBrYtddvD0-lJsAgg/o.jpg Dunkin Donuts MLK - form based: http://www.dunkinbrandsfs.com/uploads/8/5/2/4/8524761/8862326_orig.jpg Slim Chickens - Wedingon - form based: http://www.fayettevilleflyer.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/slims1.jpg They aren't a huge burden to developers like some of the city council pretends they are. It makes me wonder where their loyalties lie and what may be influencing them.

Unless Terminella et al were given specific wording that they would be granted "C-2 and C-3 zoning", rather than just "commercial zoning", I don't see how they have a legitimate lawsuit. Any threat in that manner would be mitigated by offering them other commercial zoning categories, which is what the planning commission tried to do, if I am reading the documents correctly. Those are commercial use zoning categories that they suggested. Hell, in some cases, form-based zonings allow for MORE uses for a particular property than the old codes, and remove the burden of having to go back in and re-zone property, if someday you get approached by an apartment developer, for example. Apartments would be a use by right under Community Services and Downtown General. So would restaurants and even big retail stores. I think the primary "complexity" of the codes for some of these guys might be the way they allow all types of uses, and that makes the categories longer, less specific about use, and maybe more difficult to understand.

I hear ya. I thought the agreement was that it would be zoned commercial primarily. The form-based codes are commercial zones. They aren't a detriment to building and developing. Not a single national tenant/brand that has been given a form-based code has failed to develop their property and open their business. I just want what's best for the city. In this case, I believe it is commercial zoning, but in a form-based code that allows for better arrangement and placement of the buildings, with a resulting better-looking streetscape. It isn't an unreasonable burden.

The Planning Commission wants to use form-based zoning categories. They don't want to derail commercial development, nor do they want to require PZDs. The difference is as minor as how Freddy's on Wedington is laid out vs how Arvest is laid out a few blocks away. One is up near the street, has better building "articulation" and the other sits back behind parking and less building articulation. No commercial uses would be prohibited if the planning commission got their way. Higher standards of design and building arrangement are the primary differences between the two types of zoning. Advocating for c-2 zoning for that area just means you are advocating for lower-quality crap vs slightly better quality crap arranged slightly differently. Over time, the form-based zonings make the city look and "feel" better. I don't understand why we have so many people advocating for lower-quality crap in this city. If you think form-based zoning would drive away something like Pinnacle, you're nuts. If anything, that is more of the style of development it promotes. Whole Foods didn't require a rezoning as the land was already C-2, but it did require a stoplight. Tennant suggested the city pay for the stoplight at that intersection. I'm fine with that. If Whole Foods would have required a rezoning, I would have preferred it be zoned CS, UT or any of the other form-based zonings. They really improve the look of development in the city where they have been used. Wedington and Rupple will have a lot of them. South Fayetteville has some. They create a better look overall.

More good, sane infill in downtown Bentonville. Haxton Road Studios.

I just read the PDF at the Fayetteville Flyer. I think if you read that, you'll see that Crain granted the easement with the tree-preservation area as a condition of approval for their other car lot. That only happened last year. Now they are proposing to get rid of it. To city planning, it no doubt looks like a bait & switch tactic, and some of them are probably personally offended by it. I don't blame them. I think Crain made a good faith effort in replacing the trees elsewhere, but they are trying to get around existing regulations that have served Fayetteville well. I like that Target has at least some of the big trees left near it, and the parking lot looks like a forest in the summer. Developers need to address this stuff on the front end instead of plopping down development plans and asking for different rules and throwing a fit when they don't get their way. I still don't think ours are that bad, and it wouldn't be good to throw them out over something deliberately shifty like this.

They are in business to make money, not bring in tax money to the city. The city has landscape and design standards. The city's design standards and landscape requirements are not what I consider to be onerous. Stormwater mitigation is another matter... The city's codes are easily determinable prior to submitting any proposal to an engineer or architect. Crain knows this. They have the opportunity to design their project within the boundaries which have been set for years and years. I just don't get the whole "it's an emergency, we gotta rework the tree/landscape stanards!" mentality because a business comes to the table ignoring the existing ordinances. THAT is the wrong reaction. People act like businesses are surprised by some aspect of the design standards, and are the victims. They aren't. The codes are in place. They've been used for years and years. They are public information, and it is likely that the designer and builder of the projects is well-acquainted with them. Marsh's response wasn't thought through, but I think sticking to the city's guns on a few things is the right response. I don't have a dog in the hunt other than wanting to live in a city that isn't some stripmalled hellhole. The problem with "OMG its 24 trees!!" is the immediate turn towards "Let's scrap the landscape ordinance!". Screw that.

Eh, I think Marsh supports some good stuff most of the time. The problem is nuance. She doesn't have much. Petty offers an alternative, while keeping the development standards intact. I'm not for us stripping down our development standards to "attract more businesses", mainly because I know that Fayetteville's standards aren't all that strong. We are probably the strongest in Arkansas, but that isn't saying much. I am for some level-headed compromise. The problem I have is setting a precedent that future developments point toward and we loosen our aesthetic and landscape requirements for everyone. Keep the tree/landscape standards. Bend a little when necessary, or propose other options that meet the spirit of the codes.

That's pretty cool.

Yeah, I am generally not a fan of his work, but that will be an improvement. There will be a furniture store located there as well as his studio. The furniture store will be called "With".

Here's the Blackwell rendering for the building on Center, just off the square.

I read the neighborhood's complaints. I actually agree that it would look better all around if they moved it closer to Appleby.

JB Hunt has broken ground on their new office tower. Unfortunately for the skyscraper lovers, it is essentially being built on the lowest part of their property there in Lowell. There's a sign by the freeway, but I haven't been able to find a rendering anywhere online.

There is a rendering up on the side of the small building on Center St that Marlon Blackwell is renovating. I'll try to get a pic sometime soon unless someone beats me to it.

Lewis Ford should sell out and get themselves a freeway location. There'd be buyers for their N. College Ave property for redevelopment, next to Whole Foods.

The site plans show a lot of parking. I doubt it will be an issue here. All of the traffic for these buildings will access the lots from Appleby, which is becoming a busy little connector.