Fayetteville, Arkansas

[wmr]

Marsh did get the ball rolling, but at the end, voted against it.

 

The ultimate blame resides with the people who voted for it, IMO.  If they aren't smart enough to realize what they are voting in favor of, then they have no business being on the city council in the first place.

[wmr]

If I presented you, and autonomous, free-willed adult, with three choices, and they were:

 

1.  Eat a big pile of dog poop.

 

2.  Eat just a little bit of dog poop.

 

3.  Eat NO dog poop.

 

If you wind up eating dog poop, you did it of your own free will.  You can't say "he made me eat dog poop", when one of the choices is "eat NO dog poop".

Edited December 4, 2013 by wmr

[bubba72704]

I'm just wondering if developers will turn their eyes north to Bentonville.  I can see sooo many multi-family and residential opportunities in the Bentonville downtown area opening up in the next few years.  Sorry, Fayetteville.

[JamesE]

If I presented you, and autonomous, free-willed adult, with three choices, and they were:

 

1.  Eat a big pile of dog poop.

 

2.  Eat just a little bit of dog poop.

 

3.  Eat NO dog poop.

 

If you wind up eating dog poop, you did it of your own free will.  You can't say "he made me eat dog poop", when one of the choices is "eat NO dog poop".

 

Correct.  But it's Marsh who said "let's make Fayetteville eat a big pile of dog poop" in the first place while telling the City council that it's only warm chocolate, not dog poop, knowing full-well most of them are too lazy and stupid to know the difference.  Lionel Jordan, Adella Gray and the rest of that sorry lot didn't think dog poop would taste good until after Sarah Marsh suggested it.  And once they started licking their chops planning to eat that big pile of dog poop, naively thinking it to be warm chocolate, she didn't do nearly enough to stop it.  All of them need to be voted out; the complete lack of leadership and vision displayed by the city council here is astounding.

Edited December 4, 2013 by JamesE

[wmr]

Agreed.  On the whole, our leadership doesn't represent the real brain trust of Fayetteville.  I suppose that's why they are politicians rather than using their brains to make real money.  Its like watching a monkey effing a football, seeing this council and Lioneld Jordan navigate the complexities of urban planning and infill.  Maddening, really.

Edited December 4, 2013 by wmr

[JamesE]

I'm just wondering if developers will turn their eyes north to Bentonville.  I can see sooo many multi-family and residential opportunities in the Bentonville downtown area opening up in the next few years.  Sorry, Fayetteville.

 

Many of them already are.  My builder, who recently has done a lot a high-quality infill work in Fayetteville, now flatly refuses to have anything to do with the city due to previous city council decisions.  He's turned his attention to Bentonville.  This is a guy who builds LEED homes, who advocates for zero lot housing (which mitigates spawl) and who rehabilitates deteriorated neighborhoods: exactly the sort of developer the Fayetteville city council says it wants and are tacitly relying upon to implement the Fayetteville 2030 plan, which of course envisions significant infill in these exact neighborhoods.  I know he plans to come back if/when the city council grows a brain, but after yesterday, that could be a very long wait.

 

As for folks like Specialized, I imagine they'll try to force the city council to honor their existing building permits and then focus future development in lower density out on Weddington.  The demand is certainly there for student housing, the UofA isn't building it themselves, and if we can't do it right by building density in urban areas then it'll get built somewhere else (where it will add to sprawl).

Edited December 4, 2013 by JamesE

[UrbanArkie]

Maybe 20 years ago F'ville could have implemented these restrictions without loosing much business, but nowadays... not so much.

I was talking with a very successful individual that relocated here this year, and they have yet to travel to Fayetteville.

[JamesE]

Maybe 20 years ago F'ville could have implemented these restrictions without loosing much business, but nowadays... not so much.

I was talking with a very successful individual that relocated here this year, and they have yet to travel to Fayetteville.

 

I can understand that.  Fayetteville still has a whole lot to offer, however, despite the stupidity of our city government.  Rogers feels very suburban and artifical to me; even the Pinnacle area is really just higher density suburban blandness.  I thought I would love living in Benton county a few years back, and I absolutely hated it once I moved there; to each his own, I suppose.  I know plenty of people who likewise really like Benton county and don't much care for Fayetteville and its neighbors.  Fayetteville offers the only true urban experience in NWA, which is why it's so frustrating seeing the city council doing much to prevent the very sort of development that once helped to make Fayetteville what it is today.  The Sarah Marsh-types pander to people who want the city to stay exactly as it is, nevermind it is change that made what it is in the first place.  And nevermind Sarah Marsh herself is pro-smart development, even if she does have a very bizarre and self-destructive way of showing it.  And you're right; 20 years ago, developers would have had to suck it up, pass their expenses along to the customer, and conform to whatever restrictions the city imposed.  Now days, they and their customers have the option to go elsewhere and that's exactly what they'll do, at least until the politics finally swings back in favor of growth & development.

Edited December 4, 2013 by JamesE

[JamesE]

Yeah, if people around here cannot deal with height downtown--even the marginally high buildings that would happen in a college town--well, that's a really bad sign.  Maybe there's some good-ole-boy corruption behind this.  Otherwise it makes so little sense.

 

That's what galls me the most.  If someone chooses to move into a low-density, single use zoned suburban subdivision, they don't get to complain about the nearest store, public library, restaurant or bar not being in walking distance of their home.  That's the compromise they made when they bought into the low traffic and quite lifestyle out in the 'burbs.  But when people choose all the conveniences of living downtown, they also have made compromises.  When living downtown, which every reasonable person knows is zoned for high density, multi-use developments, one must expect more traffic and noise, and also expect that a mix of medium to large commerical, office, residential and public buildings will be sharing their neighborhood with them.  New buildings being built similar to what already exists only a block or two away is a very real and likely possibility.  Most people who choose to live downtown are not NIMBYs; they knew what they were signing up for and that's what they love about downtown living.   And yet the few NIMBYs we have who are so unreasonable as to expect downtown to be just like the 'burbs, get pandered to by the likes of Sarah Marsh when they start complaining about what their neighbors can and cannot do with their land.   

Edited December 4, 2013 by JamesE

[TRB]

That's what galls me the most.  If someone chooses to move into a low-density, single use zoned suburban subdivision, they don't get to complain about the nearest store, public library, restaurant or bar not being in walking distance of their home.  That's the compromise they made when they bought into the low traffic and quite lifestyle out in the 'burbs.  But when people choose all the conveniences of living downtown, they also have made compromises.  When living downtown, which every reasonable person knows is zoned for high density, multi-use developments, one must expect more traffic and noise, and also expect that a mix of medium to large commerical, office, residential and public buildings will be sharing their neighborhood with them.  New buildings being built similar to what already exists only a block or two away is a very real and likely possibility.  Most people who choose to live downtown are not NIMBYs; they knew what they were signing up for and that's what they love about downtown living.   And yet the few NIMBYs we have who are so unreasonable as to expect downtown to be just like the 'burbs, get pandered to by the likes of Sarah Marsh when they start complaining about what their neighbors can and cannot do with their land.   

Sarah got played by a household and their friends. Now, if you want to build something, the City Council will be in the business of being the planning commission as well, cause damn near anything that actually makes sense will need a variance. What a cluster. I'm sure the Sweetsers and Lindsays of the world loved this.

[TRB]

Gotta break the hammering of stupidity, here's a neat concept being pitched for a midtown location in Memphis

 

Edited December 5, 2013 by TRB

[zman9810]

I'm trying to figure out where they came up with that 15 feet for setbacks number. It wasn't in the original or amended version of the ordinance, was it? Surely someone realized how overreaching that distance is. Considering how small some of the vacant lots where houses once stood in downtown Fayetteville it is not reasonable to expect that 30 feet across one dimension of a lot is now unusable for building. Moratorium or not, more time should have been spent looking at the consequences of what was being considered. In fact- this ordinance as is could be considered a ban on much development of any sort so it will hurt more than the moratorium would.

[JamesE]

I'm trying to figure out where they came up with that 15 feet for setbacks number. It wasn't in the original or amended version of the ordinance, was it? Surely someone realized how overreaching that distance is. Considering how small some of the vacant lots where houses once stood in downtown Fayetteville it is not reasonable to expect that 30 feet across one dimension of a lot is now unusable for building. Moratorium or not, more time should have been spent looking at the consequences of what was being considered. In fact- this ordinance as is could be considered a ban on much development of any sort so it will hurt more than the moratorium would.

 

Yep, the setbacks are certainly a de facto ban.  The sprawl developers probably wet themselves given that they now will have little-to-no competition from infill developers, and most likely they played a big role behind the scenes in getting this final mess passed.  Based on Marsh & Petty's recent actions, I now think they were patsies; pro-smart development folks who very naively listened to the usual foaming-at-the-mouth, anti-development NIMBYs who protest everything, who were (over) reacting to Specialized, et al.  Marsh & Petty saw this as an opportunity to encourage smarter development and got the ball rolling on an ordinance that wound up being a complete pro-sprawl, anti-downtown turd; effectively shifting most denser, future development to uptown (and into the sprawl developers bank accounts). 

 

If there's a silver lining here, we may see denser development move to the Mill District, S. School & MLK; away from downtown but still close to it.  I expect it will be much easier to comply with the new ordinance a bit outside of downtown, the zoning is more favorable in areas, there's a lot more derelict buildings that could be redeveloped and it will be more likely to get an variance.

Edited December 5, 2013 by JamesE

[JamesE]

Gotta break the hammering of stupidity, here's a neat concept being pitched for a midtown location in Memphis

 

 

I'm trying to follow your advice here...

 

Next spring, we should see the preliminary designs for the new West Ave project that the Community Design Center has been working on, and the U of A's new Art & Design district.  These will go a long ways towards shaping the future of our city. 

Edited December 5, 2013 by JamesE

[UrbanArkie]

I think a seating venue for food trucks would be a great concept for Fayetteville. add it to a park that has summer concerts, outdoor movies, evening lighted hours, etc.

I would attend that.

[JamesE]

I think a seating venue for food trucks would be a great concept for Fayetteville. add it to a park that has summer concerts, outdoor movies, evening lighted hours, etc.

I would attend that.

 

Gully Park has a very nice outdoor concert series - phase II of the new regional park is going to include an ampitheater for mid-sized outdoor concerts.

 

The Yacht Club is a great venue for food trucks; it would be a great idea for an indoor/outdoor seating area to get added, if room permits.

Edited December 5, 2013 by JamesE

[wmr]

I'm trying to figure out where they came up with that 15 feet for setbacks number. It wasn't in the original or amended version of the ordinance, was it? Surely someone realized how overreaching that distance is. Considering how small some of the vacant lots where houses once stood in downtown Fayetteville it is not reasonable to expect that 30 feet across one dimension of a lot is now unusable for building. Moratorium or not, more time should have been spent looking at the consequences of what was being considered. In fact- this ordinance as is could be considered a ban on much development of any sort so it will hurt more than the moratorium would.

 

That 15 foot setback is 15 feet from the property line, then 15 feet additional step-back after the building goes up 24 feet.  Its actually a 30 foot setback for any part of a building above 24 feet.

 

It was in the original ordinance and it is extreme.  

 

I really think we have some complete morons on the city council who could not even understand what they were voting for.  Gray and Adams come across that way to me. 

[UrbanArkie]

I don't remember where I had seen it, but one jurisdiction had a foot to foot building setback ordinance. While the theory seems intelligent, a more practical application would be half the setback per foot. This motivated the client to move to the next jurisdiction even before exploring a variance.

That said. 30/24 is even more extreme.

This type of restriction eventually causes problems with dated sites as the property width ends up undesirable with expanded building setbacks.

[TRB]

It appears the first casualty of the horrendous new ordinance is the Harvey Hill development. It's been tabled instead of going to planning commission. It was to be the sister building of The Cardinal.

 

As for those for that Food Truck idea. I envisioned this type of thing along the Razorback Greenway. Just think, instead of that recycling facility by the train track on North, it could have been something like this. I could see this around the trial and MLK. That piece of land that got turned down as a paid parking  area across from FHS on the south side of MLK bordered by the train track to the east would be a good place.

Edited December 5, 2013 by TRB

[JamesE]

It appears the first casualty of the horrendous new ordinance is the Harvey Hill development. It's been tabled instead of going to planning commission. It was to be the sister building of The Cardinal.

 

As for those for that Food Truck idea. I envisioned this type of thing along the Razorback Greenway. Just think, instead of that recycling facility by the train track on North, it could have been something like this. I could see this around the trial and MLK. That piece of land that got turned down as a paid parking  area across from FHS on the south side of MLK bordered by the train track to the east would be a good place.

 

They really ought to call this the "Anti-Specialized Real Estate Group Ordinance."  Running Seth Mimms out of town is the dumbest thing possible if one is genuinely pro-infill and pro-LEED, as most of the city council members claim.  I expect the Collier Place development is doomed too, provided that one was actually still progressing.

 

Regarding the parking lot on MLK, I expect that one got shutdown by the streamside protection ordinance, given that there's a blueline stream running the length of the property.  If so, then that lot is all but unbuildable.

[TRB]

They really ought to call this the "Anti-Specialized Real Estate Group Ordinance."  Running Seth Mimms out of town is the dumbest thing possible if one is genuinely pro-infill and pro-LEED, as most of the city council members claim.  I expect the Collier Place development is doomed too, provided that one was actually still progressing.

 

Regarding the parking lot on MLK, I expect that one got shutdown by the streamside protection ordinance, given that there's a blueline stream running the length of the property.  If so, then that lot is all but unbuildable.

 

They really ought to call this the "Anti-Specialized Real Estate Group Ordinance."  Running Seth Mimms out of town is the dumbest thing possible if one is genuinely pro-infill and pro-LEED, as most of the city council members claim.  I expect the Collier Place development is doomed too, provided that one was actually still progressing.

 

Regarding the parking lot on MLK, I expect that one got shutdown by the streamside protection ordinance, given that there's a blueline stream running the length of the property.  If so, then that lot is all but unbuildable.

And yet Sarah was shocked over folks losing their property rights on the 15' setbacks. yet she was likely higly supportive of the streamside ordinance which was basically feel good green activism and a resume padder for a gal that's since split the scene.

[JamesE]

And yet Sarah was shocked over folks losing their property rights on the 15' setbacks. yet she was likely higly supportive of the streamside ordinance which was basically feel good green activism and a resume padder for a gal that's since split the scene.

 

Agreed.  I don't know many of the details about the stream ordinace apart from that Ms Marsh advocated it and that it effectively confiscates a lot of personal property along streams, but I do know a lot about cleaning up pollution in blueline streams having managed a number of cleanups before in my job as an environmental manager.  If anything the ordinance increases pollution, but I'm assuming the goal here was to protect the riparian zone by stealing people's private land, which I'm pretty sure the average Fayettevillian doesn't get.

 

The biggest pollutant in urban streams comes from fertilizers and other yard chemicals, and petrochemicals.  The former comes from big sod yards and the later from large engines from vehicles on roads & parking lots and from small engines, again mostly from yards.  Trash can blow in from anywhere; it's unsightly, but it's easy to clean up, as opposed to chemicals.  Buildings, conversely, don't produce chemical pollution; they do add to stormwater erosion issues by displacing permeable land, but that's easily solved with proper design & rain gardens.  Most pollution in streams originates from further away, carried into the stream by storm water, and not from homes and other structures adjacent to the stream itself.  If one really wants to protect streams, the way to do it isn't by banning structures, but rather by banning sod lawns, roads and parking lots, which of course most homeowners/voters won't support.  As you said, it is feel good green activism that accomplishes very little to show for all the property it has appropriated.

 

It's highly disengenious for Ms Marsh to act as if she cares about property rights now after what she's done previously. And of course, she more than anyone is to blame for our effectively banning large scale development downtown (where it belongs) and for effectively banning all new student housing near campus.  Of course, we'll hardly be surprised when she rallys to the cause of those complaining of sprawl... 

Edited December 6, 2013 by JamesE

[TRB]

I've heard there's some Brownstone style housing coming up for Nettleship Street near campus. I think they'll have to tweak it some.

[TRB]

Agreed.  I don't know many of the details about the stream ordinace apart from that Ms Marsh advocated it and that it effectively confiscates a lot of personal property along streams, but I do know a lot about cleaning up pollution in blueline streams having managed a number of cleanups before in my job as an environmental manager.  If anything the ordinance increases pollution, but I'm assuming the goal here was to protect the riparian zone by stealing people's private land, which I'm pretty sure the average Fayettevillian doesn't get.

 

The biggest pollutant in urban streams comes from fertilizers and other yard chemicals, and petrochemicals.  The former comes from big sod yards and the later from large engines from vehicles on roads & parking lots and from small engines, again mostly from yards.  Trash can blow in from anywhere; it's unsightly, but it's easy to clean up, as opposed to chemicals.  Buildings, conversely, don't produce chemical pollution; they do add to stormwater erosion issues by displacing permeable land, but that's easily solved with proper design & rain gardens.  Most pollution in streams originates from further away, carried into the stream by storm water, and not from homes and other structures adjacent to the stream itself.  If one really wants to protect streams, the way to do it isn't by banning structures, but rather by banning sod lawns, roads and parking lots, which of course most homeowners/voters won't support.  As you said, it is feel good green activism that accomplishes very little to show for all the property it has appropriated.

 

It's highly disengenious for Ms Marsh to act as if she cares about property rights now after what she's done previously. And of course, she more than anyone is to blame for our effectively banning large scale development downtown (where it belongs) and for effectively banning all new student housing near campus.  Of course, we'll hardly be surprised when she rallys to the cause of those complaining of sprawl... 

If some of the these people understood how dirty some of the industries making Green product were, they'd cringe. Electric Cars just consumes more electricity from the grid that promotes more coal use or more "gasp" fracking for natural gas powered plants. Let's not even get into what goes into making the batteries for the cars.

Edited December 6, 2013 by TRB

[zman9810]

Ok, I found where the proposal discussed by the Ordinance Review Committee and meant to be presented at the Tuesday council meeting had 5 ft setbacks, not 15 ft. There would have been 10 ft setbacks at the 36 ft elevation or the height of an adjacent structure within the 5 ft setback. The ordinance was changed into what the city attorney wrote at just before the meeting- what time frame I'm not sure of. Those setback restrictions would have less impact on development.

 

If you have a lot that is 60 ft wide with setbacks of 15 ft on each side you will lose 30 ft total of usable space on that lot.