Fayetteville adopts ordinance updates to meet 2021 state historic‑district rules; council sends design standards to policy committee

Fayetteville City Council on Feb. 3 voted to adopt ordinance amendments intended to bring the city’s local historic‑district regulations into compliance with state law changes enacted in 2021, and referred the proposed design‑standards document to the council’s policy committee for further review and recommendation.

The ordinance portion was moved by Councilman Benavente and seconded by Councilor Hondros; council approved the ordinance amendments by consensus. Council also requested staff produce clear, line‑by‑line comparisons between the existing standards and the proposed document, and sought peer‑city comparisons for reference.

City staff told the council the proposed standards are a new, reorganized document meant to be more user‑friendly than prior guidelines. Assistant City Manager Strickland and preservation staff said they engaged an outside attorney and a historic‑resources consultant while drafting the new standards and that the front half of the new document is intended as an informational resource for property owners.

Will (staff) summarized the document’s form and intent: “The meat of it is Section D. Those are the design standards that we are going to be looking at,” he said, and added the proposed standards split some prior topics into clearer subsections and add categories such as signage and murals. Staff said the draft moves more work into “minor work” categories that can be approved administratively rather than through the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) and adds a class of nonreviewable work for items not visible from public streets.

Council members expressed concerns about potential economic effects on downtown redevelopment, with repeated questions about window replacement, material requirements, and how the new rules would affect businesses and broadband infrastructure installations. Councilor Green and others described past instances where businesses and providers encountered confusion over historic approvals for small exterior attachments; staff replied that such routine items are processed as minor work and do not require HRC action.

Council members asked staff to return with clear comparisons showing “what it is now” and “what is proposed,” plus peer‑city examples (several council members requested Winston‑Salem and Raleigh comparisons). Staff agreed to provide a line‑by‑line pros/cons comparison and to forward the proposed standards to the policy committee for deeper review; the policy committee will return recommendations to the full council.

Several council members asked staff to consider how the standards intersect with broader economic goals for downtown development. Staff said the city remains a Certified Local Government (CLG), which brings access to National Park Service pass‑through grants and other historic preservation incentives; staff also said some tax credits and incentives have changed over time and promised to provide more detail on benefits and constraints when the committee reviews the standards.

At the work session council did not adopt the full standards document; the specific design‑standards text will return for council consideration after the policy committee prepares recommendations and staff provides the requested comparative materials.

Action summary: ordinance amendments adopted by council to achieve compliance with state law; the draft design standards were referred to the policy committee for line‑by‑line review and return with recommendations.