City Council Poised to Allow Grocery Store at Dunn and Falls After All

In a remarkable turn of events, City Council yesterday chose not to consider a motion to deny remapping the properties at Dunn and Falls to the very same zoning designation that Council denied just a week ago under a developer’s rezoning request.

At this time the Planning Department is still recommending that the property be remapped to NX-3 as part of its City wide remapping initiative.  A public hearing on the matter has been set for July 7.  NX-3 is the very same zoning district that Council denied just one week ago.

Email for City Council is


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to City Council Poised to Allow Grocery Store at Dunn and Falls After All

  1. C says:

    Does that mean we are back to where we just were over a week ago or I have I misunderstood something?

  2. BP says:

    Video from yesterday’s City Council meeting:
    The 5 minute section relevant to the post above is from about the 23:49 mark to the 28:49 mark.

    • NORCHOA says:

      This is truly unbelievable.

    • BP says:

      I’m very thankful for Russ Stephenson’s support, and I’m very disappointed that there was not a second on his motion so that we could have seen the results of a city council vote on the motion.

      Even if Russ’s motion didn’t pass, an up or down vote by each member of the council would have at least shown clearly who is in favor of Russ’s proposed OX-3 remapping vs. the Planning Commission’s currently proposed NX-3 remapping, which would allow significantly more development than the current Buffered Commercial zoning.

      David, could you put up a post with a table showing the differences between:
      A) Development allowed by the current zoning
      B) Development allowed by an OX-3 remapping
      C) Development allowed by a NX-3 remapping

      I’m thinking you could show different potential development uses down the rows, then have columns for Current Zoning, OX-3, and NX-3, and in each table cell, put a (“YES” or “✓”) versus a (“NO” or “X”).

      When council member John Odom said in the video above that residents support development according to current zoning (A), he failed to recognize that what the planning commission is recommending (C) would allow exactly the same development we opposed in the Z-1-2014 case!

      I don’t know whether or not Russ Stephenson would have been allowed to raise this remapping motion after the vote on Z-1-2014 at last week’s special hearing, but in hindsight, if that had been allowed that would have been a great time to raise this motion.

      • BP says:

        A very small example of rows for the table I suggested above could look something like this: (if any detail I have is not correct, please correct it)

        Development Use
        Current Zoning (BC)

        fuel sales

        drive thrus

        > 4000 sf per floor per structure (commercial use)

        You might want to change the column headings (or add new columns) to reflect the Use Case (UC) conditions which the City Council mentioned in the video above. I.E., show 6 columns instead of 3:

        Current Zoning (BC)
        Current Zoning (BC) + Use Case UC
        OX-3 + Use Case UC
        NX-3 + Use Case UC

        The purpose of the table is to make visually clear the types of development which are prohibited under the current scenario, but which could be allowed under the NX-3 + Use Case scenario remapping being suggested by the Planning Commission.

        Russ tried to explain this to the City Council, but Mayor Nancy McFarlane did not seem to understand what Russ was saying, and Council Member John Odom seemed to imply that residents would be OK with development under the proposed remapping (which is NOT the same as development under the current zoning).

        I may not be able to attend tonight, but I hope that someone asks Council Member Wayne Maiorano why he did not second Council Member Russ Stephenson’s motion. Even if Wayne did not support Russ’ motion, he should have at least allowed it to come to a vote.

      • BP says:

        A relevant post from last year:

        Fixing the UDO: A New Zoning District and Correctly Mapping Buffered Commercial
        Posted on November 26, 2014

        My sample table above did not end up displaying the way I intended, but I’d love it if the information in this linked post could be put in table form, to clearly show which kinds of development uses are prevented under current zoning and an OX-3 remapping, but which would be allowed under a NX-3 remapping.

  3. BP says:

    Another relevant post from last year:

    Posted on November 13, 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s