Council delays sale barn vote
It was shoulder-to-shoulder seating at Tuesday night’s city council meeting as aldermen heard another sundry round of public comment on the sale barn issue. But after about 90 minutes of discourse, the council held off on voting up or down to rezone the property from I-1 (Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial) to Downtown General.
The owner of the sale barn property wants to sell the land to Campus Crest, a North Carolina-based company that plans to build student housing on the nine acres. But, that purchase is contingent on the rezoning.
Many of the comments were repeats from the council meeting two weeks ago. Neighbors reiterated their concerns that student apartments would not fit in with the surrounding community. Several veterans spoke against the rezoning because they would like to expand the Fayetteville National Cemetery, which is adjacent to the sale barn property.
The veterans said that with time, they would be able to raise the money needed to buy the property, and reminded the council that U.S. Representative John Boozman, recently said he would seek a federal earmark so the veterans could buy the property.
An attorney speaking on behalf of the property owner said that the family’s livelihood is tied up in the land. Asking the owner to hold off on the sale of the land would be a hardship, Justin Eckman Eichmann said.
Jeremy Pate, the director of development services, said this area was designated as a “city neighborhood” in the 2025 Plan, which encourages a denser residential pattern. The Planning Commission approved the rezoning in a vote 6-1.
The Sale Barn is across the street from the National Cemetery
Ward 1 Aldermen Brenda Theil said the Downtown General zoning would not provide enough of a buffer between the surrounding neighborhood and the commercial area.
Shirley Lucas, alderman for Ward 4, said her main concern was traffic-related because students would cut through the neighborhood to get to the university.
The 2025 plan does not mean “for us to invade established neighborhoods.” Lucas said.
Adella Gray, who represents Ward 1, said she was ready to vote in favor of the rezoning and added that the veterans shouldn’t count on a federal earmark, because Representative Boozman is “not strong on earmarks.”
“He’s not promised anything,” Gray said.
Ward 2 Council member Matthew Petty said many of the comments made were “over fear.”
“We haven’t seen too much reason come forward,” Petty said.
The audience was unusually audible during the meeting, and not just at the microphone when addressing the council. When a representative from Campus Crest explained the property would have an alcohol policy, the crowd collectively scoffed, which was quickly subdued by Mayor Lioneld Jordan. After State Senator Sue Madison spoke against the rezoning, those in agreement applauded.
The issue was left on the second reading and will continue at the next council meeting on July 21.
Mary Robbins is a guest contributor for the Fayetteville Flyer. Mary declared Fayetteville as her hometown upon moving here for college. She is a Journalism graduate who enjoys live music, the outdoors and attending city council meetings. For more of Mary’s contributions, visit her author page.
Disclosure: The owner of the sale barn property, Billy Joe Bartholomew, is our own Dustin Bartholomew’s grandfather. Read our full disclosure policy here.
Comments
The Fayetteville Flyer doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy.
By Larry Ash on July 8th, 2009
Mary did a terrific fair and balanced job describing the City Council meeting. The only thing she left out was that after admonishing those present to stick strictly to real zoning issues, the Mayor and City Attorney sat mum as the developer gave an extended commercial for his proposed project, which, in reality, amounts to a single-room-occupancy long-term hotel open to any and all but billed as “student housing”–which, of course, if it really was “student housing” would be in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws.
By Alannah on July 8th, 2009
The lawyer is Justin Eichmann.
By burgerboy on July 8th, 2009
That aerial shows the property as being completely cut off from the established neighborhood. Unless there are plans to run connector streets through to Hill Street, I don’t see how this will have a huge impact on the neighborhood’s traffic. Most of the trips will be leaving the development and heading north and northwest to downtown and the U of A. I don’t see anything on the southside that college students are going to be visiting. The cemetery is a buffer between the site and neighborhood already. Aside from a couple of rentals existing on Government, the immediate short term impact doesn’t seem like it would be that big on the single-family neighborhood. Of course the long term effects are bigger. Hopefully with DG form-based code, the city can increase the shelf-life of the project beyond the 15 years of Lindsey apts.
By burgerboy on July 8th, 2009
Idea: Make the developer pay for a signal at Government and MLK. That would go a long way towards addressing the neighborhood’s traffic concerns, plus, it would help the Mill District by making a good pedestrian crossing on MLK; would also be good for the bike trail. I’m sure there are some state related hoops to jump through on that, but I think its the best solution.
By burgerboy on July 8th, 2009
Or I guess since this is just the re-zoning, make the current owner agree to pay for a light as a condition of the rezoning. Campus Crest can then bump up their purchase price by that amount. Another signal there would help calm traffic as it enters the Mill District, and start creating a streetscape more like what is found downtown with a lot of ped-Xings.
By Todd Gill on July 8th, 2009
@Alannah – Thank you. Corrected.
By moondawg on July 8th, 2009
Our National Cemetery is not a “buffer.” It is the ground where our veterans rest.
By burgerboy on July 8th, 2009
Moondawg: yes, it is.
A local environmentalist might describe an empty field as “fallow prairie with permeable soils, home to native species of grasses, vital to local wildlife”.
A real estate developer proposing commercial development might describe that same field as a “buffer” between the proposed development and the existing neighborhood. Don’t get all goofball on me.
The indignation expressed by most neighborhood residents at the recent meeting was mostly about not wanting to deal with college apartments. It really wasn’t about honoring veterans, except for the veterans that spoke.
The only benefit the neighborhood GETS from a cemetery, “National” or not, is its function as a “buffer” between them and whatever is on the other side of it. That is, unless someone desires a home in a close proximity to one so they can conveniently visit their dead relatives. I’ve yet to see proximity to a cemetery used as a selling point on a real estate brochure.
No, a cemetery guarantees empty, quiet land next to their homes; a “buffer”, by definition.
As with every single other infill project proposed in Fayetteville, the local neighborhood activists will grasp at anything that helps their cause.
Here’s a hypothetical: Lets say the cemetery is expanded onto this property, then someone proposes a Sonic or something on the adjacent commercial property fronting School Ave. Should a Sonic be allowed? Afterall, high school kids cruising and hanging out all night is kind of undignified for land next to national cemetery property.
I doubt it would cause a ruckus, because by then, the neighborhood would have a bigger “buffer” separating them from the commercial development. The veterans suddenly wouldn’t require so much protection from “undignified developement”.
Trackbacks