Fayetteville receives HR&A study for Blunt & Gillespie site; staff asked to prep RFQ and rezoning
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
City staff and HR&A presented three mixed‑use concepts for the city‑owned Blunt & Gillespie site, all preserving the E.E. Smith House and adding public open space; council unanimously received the report and directed staff to prepare an RFQ, evaluate rezoning and explore a tax‑increment grant to support public amenities.
City officials and consultants presented a feasibility and design study for the city‑owned eight‑plus‑acre property at Blunt and Gillespie during the Fayetteville City Council work session on Jan. 5.
Consultant Austin Amendolia of HR&A Advisors told the council that downtown Fayetteville has experienced modest population growth since 2010 and steady apartment absorption — roughly 240 net new units per year since 2015 — but that office and hotel demand remain constrained. HR&A and design partner MKSK produced three concept massings that share three consistent elements: preservation of the E.E. Smith House, a prioritized public open space, and the greatest development concentration at the Blunt‑Gillespie corner. The options range from a lower‑density plan with about 100 multifamily units and 25 townhomes and a roughly 2.5‑acre park to a higher‑density mixed‑use option focused on multifamily and retail.
Staff and consultants said the public benefits envisioned — a community park, potential cultural amenities and an activation strategy — are unlikely to be delivered solely by a private developer at market rates. HR&A recommended a two‑stage procurement (RFQ to shortlist developers, then an RFP), proactively rezoning the property to a single mixed‑use district before issuing an RFP, and exploring a tax increment grant (TIG) to help finance public amenities. City staff noted the draft TIG policy includes a fiscal cap (currently written as no more than roughly 2% of annual revenue in the policy draft) to limit city exposure.
Council members pressed staff on whether rezoning would exclude residential uses (staff said rezoning would enable mixed‑use buildings and higher residential density rather than remove housing), how TIG terms would work and what would make concept 1 feasible. Staff said rezoning, an RFQ and a modest public subsidy could make the mid‑ and high‑density scenarios feasible and that RFQ language could ask respondents to address affordability strategies without overloading a single project with too many public requirements.
Councilman Hondros moved to receive the HR&A report and to allow staff to proceed with RFQ development, parcel recombination and rezoning efforts; Councilmember Davis seconded the motion. The council voted unanimously to receive the report and direct staff to return with RFQ materials and rezoning proposals within the staff‑estimated timeline.
The next procedural step is for staff to draft the RFQ and present it to council for review before release.