Show Low council selects developer-donated Site 2 for sports and event center and approves seating plan

Show Low City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to select Site 2 for the planned Show Low Sports and Event Center and to approve the project's seating configuration, following staff presentations and more than an hour of public comment.

Staff and the project architect presented four candidate parcels and recommended Site 2, a developer-donated parcel just north of East Wolford Road, based on utility availability, future roadway access and zoning. Council then approved the seating layout identified as Alternate 1, a telescopic/fixed hybrid that preserves a roughly 4,300'00 baseline seating scheme and keeps the building height lower than earlier designs.

Staff said the council needed to pick a site before designers could proceed with detailed building work. The decision matters because site choice affects utility extension costs, grading and retaining-wall needs, parking layouts and whether the city will need to rezone or buy additional land.

City staff said they evaluated four parcels. In staff's summary: Site 2 measures about 13.7 acres with utilities at the north end and an expected separation of roughly 400 feet from the nearest residential lot; Site 1 was described inconsistently in the meeting materials and staff remarks (staff initially described it as "approximately 9 acres" and later slides labeled it roughly 13 acres); Site 3 was described as roughly 17.1 acres with utilities about 2,700 feet away and about a 1,500-foot separation to the nearest residential parcel; and Site 4 is a 47-acre, city-owned parcel that is not currently zoned for a sports facility, has steep topography (staff said the flattest portion still has roughly an 80-foot change in elevation across an equivalent 13-acre area) and utilities about 1,500 feet away. Staff recommended Site 2 based on what they described as more predictable site costs, available utilities and developer support.

Architect Chris Ford walked the council through pros and cons of each site. He said Site 2's consistent slope and developer support made it "an easier, more predictable build," but noted the team must remove on-site stockpiled soils and evaluate whether those materials can be reused on the building pad. For Site 3, Ford said the larger elevation change and lack of utilities would require extensive retaining walls and high site costs. For Site 4 he said there was "no clear path" to build a facility of this scale without major grading and utility extensions.

Public speakers at the council's call-to-the-public raised neighborhood concerns. Ramon Ballens of 560 South Creekside Road said residents preferred Site 3 (across Penrod) and alleged the developer and the development engineer were benefiting from the city picking Sites 1 or 2; he cited values he said were associated with donated parcels ("Site 2 at $71,000; Site 1 at $45,000; Site 3 at about $20,500") and said those figures were published in a local newspaper article he had submitted to the council. Beverly Hammer urged the council to place the center on Penrod (Site 3) so it would front a main road rather than sit behind commercial property; she also raised concerns about a proposed nearby private school and alcohol sales. Tim Flanagan and Doug Evenson said the project would change neighborhood character and increase traffic; Evenson asked the council to consider gating Wolford Road to block cut-through traffic. Council members and staff repeatedly responded that Wolford Road and…