Fayetteville, Arkansas

[TRB]

 

Sarah Marsh and crew continue to show why Fayetteville is still viewed as difficult to develop in. From the Flyer:

NOTES: The applicant offered to plant up to 1.5 times the amount of required trees (36) on property owned by the Fayetteville School District, but aldermen are not allowed by law to accept a proposal to plant trees on a third-party property. The applicant then offered to plant twice as many required trees (48) on any city-owned property, or to pay twice the required amount of money ($32,400) into the tree escrow account in lieu of planting trees. City Attorney Kit Williams said if aldermen are interested in the last option, the item should be tabled to give parks staff time to consider the proposal.
Alderwoman Marsh said she was against the proposal and said the value of the trees, both environmentally and what they bring to the quality of life in Fayetteville, is worth far more to the city than $32,400.

Alderwoman Gray said the dealership is expected to bring in $50,000 each month in city sales tax revenue, and that she was embarrassed that some aldermen are considering denial of the proposal over 24 trees. Gray said this issue is one of the reasons Fayetteville has a reputation for being bad for business, and she would like to see changes to the city’s regulations that would make it easier for developers to build in Fayetteville.

Aldermen Tennant agreed, and said he would like to work with Alderwoman Gray to make changes to the tree preservation ordinance, possibly by allowing developers to plant trees on school district property when city parks staff determine that trees aren’t needed on city-owned land.

Alderman Kinion said he wants to see the dealership built in Fayetteville, but added that the city has a tricky topography that presents runoff and sediment challenges other cities in the region don’t have to deal with. He said if the item is tabled or left on the first reading tonight, he hopes a compromise can be reached.

Alderman Petty said there are other options to consider besides trading trees (or escrow funds) for a new development, such as allowing the applicant to tweak certain parts of the plans. For example, by decreasing the required widths of the property’s driving lanes by a couple of feet through variances, the developer might be able to shrink the overall footprint of the project and avoid the tree mitigation issue altogether.

Aldermen voted unanimously to table the item until the next City Council meeting.

[strmchsr77]

Sarah Marsh and crew continue to show why Fayetteville is still viewed as difficult to develop in. From the Flyer:

NOTES: The applicant offered to plant up to 1.5 times the amount of required trees (36) on property owned by the Fayetteville School District, but aldermen are not allowed by law to accept a proposal to plant trees on a third-party property. The applicant then offered to plant twice as many required trees (48) on any city-owned property, or to pay twice the required amount of money ($32,400) into the tree escrow account in lieu of planting trees. City Attorney Kit Williams said if aldermen are interested in the last option, the item should be tabled to give parks staff time to consider the proposal.
Alderwoman Marsh said she was against the proposal and said the value of the trees, both environmentally and what they bring to the quality of life in Fayetteville, is worth far more to the city than $32,400.

Alderwoman Gray said the dealership is expected to bring in $50,000 each month in city sales tax revenue, and that she was embarrassed that some aldermen are considering denial of the proposal over 24 trees. Gray said this issue is one of the reasons Fayetteville has a reputation for being bad for business, and she would like to see changes to the city’s regulations that would make it easier for developers to build in Fayetteville.

Aldermen Tennant agreed, and said he would like to work with Alderwoman Gray to make changes to the tree preservation ordinance, possibly by allowing developers to plant trees on school district property when city parks staff determine that trees aren’t needed on city-owned land.

Alderman Kinion said he wants to see the dealership built in Fayetteville, but added that the city has a tricky topography that presents runoff and sediment challenges other cities in the region don’t have to deal with. He said if the item is tabled or left on the first reading tonight, he hopes a compromise can be reached.

Alderman Petty said there are other options to consider besides trading trees (or escrow funds) for a new development, such as allowing the applicant to tweak certain parts of the plans. For example, by decreasing the required widths of the property’s driving lanes by a couple of feet through variances, the developer might be able to shrink the overall footprint of the project and avoid the tree mitigation issue altogether.

Aldermen voted unanimously to table the item until the next City Council meeting.

Sarah Marsh is a cancer to the city and development.  I'm surprised she does not just come out and say keep the development in Benton County. This is why we can't have nice things....

 

[wmr]

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.  

[TRB]

WMR, I respect ya man but Marsh is indefensible. Fist what Petty wants to do is make the 5he lot smaller, meaning two cars could pass by each other when folks are window shopping on a Sunday afternoon. The Crain folks are offering above and beyond and your girl thinks that's not good enough. I guess Crain should have pitched money for Kessler Mt. like the Walmart  connections did for 5his council to catwr to their wants on the MLK NM. Tell one thing they did wrong on the Hyundai lot and why they should get this reception from our leaders wanting to bring in more sales tax and property tax that would benefit the city and school district. This is the embodiment  of why Fayetteville gets the rap they do. The rules in place aren't good enough and we want more and when they offer more, nope still not good enough but they have created a traffic issue that's already led to increased accidents by bending over backward to accommodate a retail brand they wanted when folks pointed out the issues that would happen.

I took my girl to dance last night. It's 6ish. I'm going north on college in the left lane and traffic is backed up to nearly Mongs Dynasty from folks crowding into that lane to get to the flyover. It's a complete cluster that was predicted by many.

[wmr]

 Tell one thing they did wrong on the Hyundai lot and why they should get this reception from our leaders wanting to bring in more sales tax and property tax that would benefit the city and school district. This is the embodiment  of why Fayetteville gets the rap they do.

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.  

 

  

[wmr]

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.

[zman9810]

The Washington Regional expansion across Appleby was resolved by moving the building location by 24 feet. That was easy.

The Van Asche rezoning did not happen. It will be appealed to the City Council which should overturn the rejection if common sense prevails. When the acreage was annexed into the city the City agreed that it would be zoned commercial and not planned development. If the City Council wants any business or other government entity to take it at its word it will do as was agreed on. Spending money on a lawsuit in what seems to be a clear cut case isn't a wise use of tax money. Of course- it wouldn't be the first time the City has made such a move.

[TRB]

The Washington Regional expansion across Appleby was resolved by moving the building location by 24 feet. That was easy.

The Van Asche rezoning did not happen. It will be appealed to the City Council which should overturn the rejection if common sense prevails. When the acreage was annexed into the city the City agreed that it would be zoned commercial and not planned development. If the City Council wants any business or other government entity to take it at its word it will do as was agreed on. Spending money on a lawsuit in what seems to be a clear cut case isn't a wise use of tax money. Of course- it wouldn't be the first time the City has made such a move.

Jordan had a hard on to get this land away from Johnson, Johnson balked but had to relent while keeping a tiny slither of land north of that old narrow cut through road. That's what happens when a small town depends on others to provide their services to them. Jordan better get his band of progs under control. There's evident favoritism for projects, I point out Whole Foods. If that was any other business the traffic concerns would have been a huge issue. Whole Foods isn't even open and it's already FUBAR around there at peak times. Amazing how  just after the change parking regs, a council person has a development that will will benefit. Not that I disagree with it, it's just a bad look.

Edited November 12, 2015 by TRB

[wmr]

The Washington Regional expansion across Appleby was resolved by moving the building location by 24 feet. That was easy.

The Van Asche rezoning did not happen. It will be appealed to the City Council which should overturn the rejection if common sense prevails. When the acreage was annexed into the city the City agreed that it would be zoned commercial and not planned development. If the City Council wants any business or other government entity to take it at its word it will do as was agreed on. Spending money on a lawsuit in what seems to be a clear cut case isn't a wise use of tax money. Of course- it wouldn't be the first time the City has made such a move.

 

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.  

Jordan better get his band of progs under control. There's evident favoritism for projects, I point out Whole Foods. If that was any other business the traffic concerns would have been a huge issue. Whole Foods isn't even open and it's already FUBAR around there at peak times. Amazing how  just after the change parking regs, a council person has a development that will will benefit. Not that I disagree with it, it's just a bad look.

 

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.

Edited November 12, 2015 by wmr

[zman9810]

I'm not debating the particulars of the zoning but whether the City is trying to break the promise made when the land was annexed. Changing the rules after the fact seems like it will lead to a lawsuit that the City will lose and cost money that could be better used elsewhere. 

I think most people would agree the newer way is better than buildings with huge parking lots in front of them. Hopefully a middle ground can be found.

[wmr]

I'm not debating the particulars of the zoning but whether the City is trying to break the promise made when the land was annexed. Changing the rules after the fact seems like it will lead to a lawsuit that the City will lose and cost money that could be better used elsewhere. 

^{I think most people would agree the newer way is better than buildings with huge parking lots in front of them. Hopefully a middle ground can be found.}

^{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.}  

 

 

Edited November 13, 2015 by wmr

[wmr]

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.  

Edited November 13, 2015 by wmr

[wmr]

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.

 

 

[bubba72704]

Is it true that form based design is preferred but not required under current rules?

[TRB]

Is it true that form based design is preferred but not required under current rules?

they bent over backwards for Walmart's NM on 6th Street and didn't force this on them. So we got a parking in front, box in back there. I wonder if large donations  by the Walton clan for Kessler Mountain had any influence on that lack of resistance. 

[wmr]

Is it true that form based design is preferred but not required under current rules?

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.

[IronScott]

they bent over backwards for Walmart's NM on 6th Street and didn't force this on them. So we got a parking in front, box in back there. I wonder if large donations  by the Walton clan for Kessler Mountain had any influence on that lack of resistance. 

Who cares? Really, why is this that important? And even if it is important and the donations made a difference, then good. It is much better than the other Petty bullcrap we constantly deal with. This is a city ready to explode with growth but the leadership here does little but stifle it. I love the UofA and the funkiness of Fayetteville but the politics and taxes and "nimbyness" here drives me freaking crazy. This could be an incredible city but at this rate it never will be.

On a separate note, I noticed that the area where the new Whataburger is going in on Joyce is currently being demolished. I expect the new store to happen quickly now. I guess Sue couldn't stop this.

 

 

[zman9810]

The City Council has legal advice from their own attorney that the rezoning should pass or they can be sued. If they don't follow that legal advice from their own employee why have a city attorney at all? The developer has dealt with City staff for decades now and he thinks he has a clear cut case if it comes to that. The impression I get is that City staff wants to have two separate processes that can be used to develop in the city but if the developer chooses the one the city staff doesn't like they will reject it. At this point the Planning Commission will back them up although I remember times in the past when they have not. The City Council has also rejected the staff arguments in the past and will likely do so this time if a compromise can't be reached.

 

It may be better to have only form based planning - do away with any other process. The trouble there is it will discourage anyone from investing in the city. Investors will think, why not just go up the road to Springdale's new hot spot around Arvest Park? It has much better access off I49 and Springdale is much easier to work with. There have always been the anti-growth people in Fayetteville and this issue plays right into their hands. I've defended city staff in the past but lately they and some members of the City Council seem more interested in social engineering than in promoting growth and investment in the city.

 

Edited November 14, 2015 by zman9810

[bubba72704]

I have to agree with Zman.  I lost a lot of faith when Petty tried to reduce the Rupple Rd. Extension down to 2 lanes.  Now I feel like they are trying to discourage suburban growth in Fayetteville-- especially if you drive a car.  And speaking of cars, wasn't there some drama around the new VW dealership?  Someone on the PC didn't like their tree management proposal?

[wmr]

 

 

It may be better to have only form based planning - do away with any other process. The trouble there is it will discourage anyone from investing in the city. 

 

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. 

Edited November 14, 2015 by wmr

[wmr]

I have to agree with Zman.  I lost a lot of faith when Petty tried to reduce the Rupple Rd. Extension down to 2 lanes.  Now I feel like they are trying to discourage suburban growth in Fayetteville-- especially if you drive a car.  And speaking of cars, wasn't there some drama around the new VW dealership?  Someone on the PC didn't like their tree management proposal?

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.  

[wmr]

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.

Edited November 14, 2015 by wmr

[zman9810]

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. 

The best example of where that would have happened is the MLK Neighborhood market. From what I understand Walmart was ready to walk away from it if the rezoning hadn't went their way. The three examples of fast food places are good ones and those businesses will an economic impact but not nearly what a business such as a Neighborhood Market will. For the land along Van Asche to become a regional destination there needs to be as much flexibility in development plans as possible. It already has the lack of accessibility from I49 working against it.

That is why I mention the Arvest park area. I realize that Springdale is a easy target to disparage(I've done it myself) but that area is already a regional destination with the NWA Naturals, plans for a new NWACC campus and the location of the Arkansas Childrens Hospital. With the ease of access off I49 and the street improvements happening now that area is going to explode in the next few years. While Springdale may not have the demographics of Fayetteville it does have a Fortune 500 company and resulting high per capita income close by. Any company employee that does a thorough job a vetting locations will discover these facts and if the tipping point is ease of development they will choose that area.

[bubba72704]

IMHO having a parking lot in front of a project as opposed to behind it isn't a 'crappy' look.  Any visible or logistical benefits of form based development, to my eye, is negligible -- and not worth the trouble.  I would argue that in larger retail establishments form based design would be  a pretty big logistical problem.  In smaller restaurant formats you don't have as many headaches with managing inventory & delivery trucks.  Pushing customer parking to the back of the store puts big trucks and customers closer together.  I can understand why big retailers wouldn't want this.  

What's more important in my opinion is the long-term maintenance & upkeep of not only the development itself but the neighborhood it resides in.  I'm sure, 40 years from now, these areas you mention will be 'the bad part of town' -- as South School is now considered by many to be.   Over decades, many of the currently new developments will lose patrons and go under as people flock to wherever the hot new areas will be.  Some buildings will fall into disrepair & when they do it won't matter how close the building is to the street -- it will still look ugly. 

You ask for examples and it's hard to give direct examples since most developers won't come to the press and explicitly say they chose to develop somewhere else because of Fayetteville's codes, however it's pretty obvious that many other areas of NWA are booming right now.  Also, and correct me if I'm wrong here, it looks to me like the vast majority of Fayetteville's growth over the last 8 or 10 years is a direct result of the boom in enrollment at the U of A.  The last numbers I saw showed about 8,000 new students over the past 7 years.  This is a direct result of the economic downturn (many went back to school since they couldn't get a job) and the Arkansas Lottery Scholarships.  This student growth has given us tons of small restaurants, small retail, and apartments.  I really can't see much, if any, growth in Fayetteville that's directly attributable to any policies of the planning commission.  Am I wrong?  I see so much white collar and blue collar growth in other areas of NWA, but not very much in Fayetteville...  OK, maybe a few tech jobs in the Tech Park on the south side of town, but that's it.  If you take the U of A's growth out of the picture, Fayetteville would be withering right now.  Please let me know if you have data that proves otherwise.

[wmr]

On 11/16/2015, 7:15:04, bubba72704 said:

IMHO having a parking lot in front of a project as opposed to behind it isn't a 'crappy' look.  Any visible or logistical benefits of form based development, to my eye, is negligible -- and not worth the trouble.  I would argue that in larger retail establishments form based design would be  a pretty big logistical problem.  In smaller restaurant formats you don't have as many headaches with managing inventory & delivery trucks.  Pushing customer parking to the back of the store puts big trucks and customers closer together.  I can understand why big retailers wouldn't want this.  

What's more important in my opinion is the long-term maintenance & upkeep of not only the development itself but the neighborhood it resides in.  I'm sure, 40 years from now, these areas you mention will be 'the bad part of town' -- as South School is now considered by many to be.   Over decades, many of the currently new developments will lose patrons and go under as people flock to wherever the hot new areas will be.  Some buildings will fall into disrepair & when they do it won't matter how close the building is to the street -- it will still look ugly. 

You ask for examples and it's hard to give direct examples since most developers won't come to the press and explicitly say they chose to develop somewhere else because of Fayetteville's codes, however it's pretty obvious that many other areas of NWA are booming right now.  Also, and correct me if I'm wrong here, it looks to me like the vast majority of Fayetteville's growth over the last 8 or 10 years is a direct result of the boom in enrollment at the U of A.  The last numbers I saw showed about 8,000 new students over the past 7 years.  This is a direct result of the economic downturn (many went back to school since they couldn't get a job) and the Arkansas Lottery Scholarships.  This student growth has given us tons of small restaurants, small retail, and apartments.  I really can't see much, if any, growth in Fayetteville that's directly attributable to any policies of the planning commission.  Am I wrong?  I see so much white collar and blue collar growth in other areas of NWA, but not very much in Fayetteville...  OK, maybe a few tech jobs in the Tech Park on the south side of town, but that's it.  If you take the U of A's growth out of the picture, Fayetteville would be withering right now.  Please let me know if you have data that proves otherwise.

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.