LIVE UPDATES: City Council Recap: June 21, 2016

Notes: This proposal initially would’ve changed the approval process for event applications that request closure of city streets or parking lots in the Entertainment District for more than two days. Festival applications were normally approved in-house by city staff and the mayor.

The ordinance first sought to require approval from the full City Council each year that a festival organizer wishes to host an event. However, the council’s Ordinance Review Committee made some changes to the proposal, which were approved in an amendment by a 6-1 vote (La Tour voted against).

Instead of bringing all major event applications to the City Council, the new ordinance allows a formal appeal of a newly-approved festival permit if at least two City Council members notify the City Clerk’s office in writing within 7 days.

La Tour said bringing appeals to the City Council would politicize a decision that is better left in the hands of city staff and the mayor. He said if some business owners don’t like a particular festival, they should adapt to the market and sell something people want during those events instead of asking an alderman to appeal the festival’s application.

Council members Marsh and Tennant said allowing citizens the opportunity to appeal an in-house decision to close city streets for large events is important.

During the final vote, Schoppmeyer and La Tour voted against. Schoppmeyer did not say why.

---

Quick Summary: This proposal was modified and then approved.

Notes: This item was left on the first reading at the May 17 City Council meeting. At the time, neighbors who spoke said any new development would only compound the flooding issues the area already has and said the request should be denied.

A civil engineer speaking tonight on behalf of the applicant said a new bill of assurance promises that low-impact development procedures and water runoff management practices will be used where reasonable to help alleviate any new flooding problems created by the proposed development. He said the flooding issue that the neighborhood currently has at the end of Pumpkin Ridge Drive is caused by runoff from another area and is not affected by the property at question tonight.

Neighbors who spoke tonight echoed their sentiments from the last meeting, mostly speaking about flooding and traffic problems that could be caused by any nearby development. Some said they appreciated the promises to use low-impact development practices on this property, but said if the proposal is approved, they fear the applicant will use this development to justify adding more houses to the area in the future.

Steve Clark, president of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the proposal. He said there may be challenges presented by this development, but such is the way of change in a growing city. Clark said the city has a responsibility to react positively to change and should view this proposal as an opportunity to develop ways to mitigate problems generated from new developments.

Alderman La Tour said the applicant has the right to develop their property and if the neighbors don’t like added traffic, they should move to a smaller town.

Alderwoman Sarah Marsh said the bill of assurance offered tonight is too vague, and said the council should follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission and deny the request. She called the development “sprawl” and said it is not in line with the city’s master planning goals. She echoed her sentiments from May 17 and said approval of the request could set a dangerous precedent for the area that could lead to further development up the hill that could compound current flooding and traffic issues.

City Attorney Kit Williams cautioned the council about denying the request. Williams said the applicant has already spent a large amount of money to prepare their land for development, and that refusing to allow any economically feasible development on the land could be found to be an unconstitutional deprivation of preexisting use rights which may result in significant litigation damages to the city.

Alderman Petty said he generally doesn’t approve rezoning requests for property so close to the edges of the city, but said Williams’ legal argument to approve the request was too compelling to ignore. He said he wouldn’t be in support of any future requests to rezone property in this area.

Alderwoman Gray echoed her comments from May 17, and said she hopes the council will keep the costs that the applicant has already made in mind when considering the request.

Alderman Kinion said he has serious environmental concerns about the effects the proposed development could have on the area, but said he can’t make a decision that would likely trigger significant litigation damages.

Marsh was the only council member to vote against the request.

---

Quick Summary: Council members approved the proposal, but some said they only did so because the City Attorney is concerned that the applicant might sue the city.

Notes: Consider reading our story from yesterday for details about this proposal.

Alderman Petty said although he and other council members have expressed interest in waiting until an ongoing parking study is complete next year before entertaining formal offers for development of the property, he brought this proposal forward tonight because it was “too compelling” to pass up.

He said the proposal solves a serious safety issue while helping manifest a longtime city planning goal of seeing the southern end of the West Lot be transformed into a mixed-use building.

Rob Sharp, a local architect responsible for preliminary designs for this project, said the development would incorporate Frisco Trail by moving cyclists out of the parking lot that they currently share with vehicles. He called the project “parking neutral” and said any loss in parking would be made up by the addition of on-street spaces along West Avenue.

Petty said selling the land would pay back the cost of the parking study and would provide significant property tax revenue for area schools. He said selling a small section of the lot would give the council a chance to dip its toes into the idea of developing the lot while still maintaining about 2 acres of land for future development. Plus, he said critical pieces – including a parking demand analysis – from the ongoing parking study are set to be completed within the next month that could help the council make a decision about the project.

Sarah Sparks Diebold, who spoke on behalf of the Dickson Street Merchants Association, said the council should hold off on any action with the West Lot until the entire parking study is complete.

Hunter Haynes, who recently expressed interest in developing the entire lot, agreed with Diebold and said the city should wait until the study is complete. He questioned the price being offered for the land and said the council should consider proposals for the entire lot after the study is complete instead of giving special consideration to a small portion of the property.

Steve Clark, president of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, applauded the idea and said now that the economy has recovered, the council should give strong consideration to mixed-use developments in the Entertainment District, especially those that are parking neutral. He said he sees no reason why the city shouldn’t entertain offers for such a small piece of property that could have a lasting, positive impact on the area.

Barbara Taylor, who serves on the Walton Arts Center Council, also said the city should wait until the parking study is complete before entertaining offers for any portion of the lot.

Carl Collier of Collier Drug Stores questioned the timing of the proposal and said the city only stands to profit more money from selling property by waiting until the parking study is complete.

Alderwoman Marsh praised the proposal and said putting more residents and businesses downtown should be a top priority for the city. She said she prefers the idea of incremental development of the lot, and said she was in full support.

Alderman Petty said he would prefer not to vote on the issue tonight, but rather wait until next month to see the results of the preliminary parking demand analysis.

Alderman La Tour said some offers are worth moving on quickly instead of waiting to see if better ideas arise. He said he was excited to see a proposal for a public-private partnership, and said he anticipates seeing the parking demand analysis in a few weeks.

Alderman Tennant said the project might be exactly what the area needs, but he isn’t convinced that it has to occur now. He said the opinions of the Dickson Street Merchants Association members shouldn’t be taken lightly. He said he would like to see what effects an expanded Walton Arts Center will have on the area before making a decision.

---

Quick Summary: After a lively debate, this proposal was put on hold until the next meeting.

Notes: Consider reading our previous story about this project for more information.

Cross Church has amended their application to include a new rezoning request for a smaller portion of land and for P1, Institutional instead of the previous C-PZD. City Attorney Kit Williams said the other commercial developers who were previously a part of this request have backed out and will be building their projects under the current UT, Urban Thoroughfare zoning. The council approved the amendment 7-0.