HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-01107 - Chapter 172 Parking Requirements (Amendment) (5)
CityClerk
From:David Criswell <david.t.criswell@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, January 4, 2025 2:06 PM
To:Agenda Item Comment
Cc:Rawn, Molly; Jones, Monique; Berna, Scott; Wiederkehr, Mike; Stafford, Bob; Turk,
Teresa; Bunch, Sarah; Jones, D'Andre
Subject:Opposition to C.9 Parking Requirements
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of Fayetteville. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
the sender and know the content is safe.
Esteemed Mayor and Councilmembers,
I respect Councilmembers Wiedekher and Turk for a variety of reasons, but I must share my disagreement with the
substance of the proposed C.9 Parking Requirements agenda item and the manner in which it has been proposed. A few
points of opposition are:
1. Lack of Involvement of Experts - There is a large body of research on parking in the planning discipline. If there
is an imbalance of parking requirements, the matter should be consulted with experts in the discipline, including
city staff.
2. More Pavement - In an effort to limit parking reductions across the board, we also run the risk that excess
parking may inadvertently develop. Let us acknowledge that excess paved parking increases impervious area,
increasing surface temperatures, stormwater runoff, streambank erosion, and pollution. These are harmful
impacts to our natural environment and contrary to our recently adopted Climate Action Plan.
3. Delaying Compact Development - By requiring a variance to reduce parking, the timeline to create "compact
development", which is prioritized in City Plan 2040, is extended as the matter must go to planning commission.
The matter can be further extended if appealed to City Council and potentially tabled. Such delays have an
adverse effect on creating housing supply.
4. Bike Parking Improvements - If we are convinced that residents of multi-family units are not trading their cars
for bikes when an outdoor bike rack is installed, perhaps we should consider requiring long-term bike parking
such as outdoor bike sheds or indoor bike rooms for automobile parking substitutions. These facilities provide
safety from weather and theft and are preferred storage locations for residents. Cities across the US including
Bloomington, IN; Madison, WI; Fort Collins, CO; Ann Arbor, MI; Tucson, AZ; Burlington, VT; Chicago, IL; Chico,
CA; and many more all have requirements of multi-family developments to provide long-term bicycle parking.
However, I believe this discussion requires detailed review and is most appropriately held in the Long Range
Planning Committee or at least with planning staff involved. As an active transportation professional, I would
always be happy to assist with this topic.
Thank you, as always, for your deliberation on these important matters and for your willingness to listen to the public.
Your service is much appreciated.
Cheers,
David Criswell
2437 W Honey Ln
Ward 4
1