Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-08-07 Minutesa17 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION A special meeting of the Fayetteville Planning Commission was held on Monday, August 7, 1995, at 1:00 p.m. in the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain St., Fayetteville, Arkansas. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry Allred, John Harbison, Phyllis Johnson, Charles Nickle, and Conrad Odom MEMBERS ABSENT: Jana Lynn Britton, John Forney, Gary Head, Bob Reynolds STAFF PRESENT: Alett Little, Don Bunn, Mandy Bunch, Perry Franklin, Charles Venable, Beth Sandeen, and Janet Johns OLD BUSINESS REZONING R95-24 - MARJORIE S. BROOKS AND NANCHAR, INC. MILHOLLAND - E OF GREGG, N OF US 71 BYPASS, W OF SKULL CREEK, S OF MUD CREEK This item was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Marjorie S. Brooks and NANCHAR, Inc. for property located east of Gregg Street, north of US 71 Bypass, west of Skull Creek, and south of Mud Creek. The request was to rezone 38.10 acres from R-1, Low Density Residential to C-2, Neighborhood Commercial. REZONING R95-25 - MARJORIE S. BROOKS AND NANCHAR, INC • MILHOLLAND - E OF SKULL CREEK, N OF 71 BYPASS, W OF US 71B, S OF CLEAR CREEK This item was submitted by Milholland Engineering on behalf of Marjorie S. Brooks and NANCHAR, Inc. for property located east of Skull Creek, north of US 71 Bypass, w of US 71B, and south of Clear Creek. The request is to rezone 271.67 acres from A-1, Agricultural to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. Staff asked the Planning Commission to make a determinations as follows: 1. The degree to which the proposed zoning is consistent with land use planning objectives principles, and policies and with land use and zoning plans; 2. Whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or needed at the time the rezoning is proposed; 3. Whether the proposed zoning would create or appreciably increase traffic danger and congestion; 4. Whether the proposed zoning would alter the population density and thereby undesirable increase the load on public facilities including schools, water, and sewer facilities. 5. If there are reasons why the proposed zoning should not be approved in view of considerations above, a determination as to whether the proposed zoning is justified and/or necessitated by peculiar circumstances such as would it be impractical to use the land for any of the uses permitted under its existing zoning or are there extenuating circumstances which justify the rezoning. Regarding R95-24, staff recommended R -O zoning for the subject parcel. Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 Page 2 Regarding R95-25, staff recommended that a portion of the tract north of Mud Creek as well as that portion of the tract contained in Section 23 and 26 of Township 17N, Range 30W be rezoned C-2 and the balance of the property be rezoned R -O. Ms. Johnson stated the meeting was informational and therefore no public comment would be taken. Ms. Little stated after the July 10, 1995 meeting there were a number of requests for additional information including a traffic study, transition zoning, design standards proposed, justification for changing the 2010 Plan, and whether or not to do a mixed use development, and information on the intensity of the use. She stated Ms. Johnson had requested a map showing the relative location of the parcel with regard to other areas of the city and presented same. Discussion of the map ensued. Ms. Bunch gave an overview of the Joyce Street extension project. She discussed the mall expansion, development of the Spring Creek Center, and cost share allocations. She stated the Joyce Street project would cost in excess of S1 million, divided between the City (61%) and developer (39%). Further she stated the Clary and Rouse Company which owns the mall would cost sharing for construction of two lanes of the Joyce Boulevard extension to Gregg Street. Mud Creek bridge will receive 80% federal funds with Rouse and Clary sharing 39% for construction of two lanes. She stated two tracts had been acquired for the extension and other land owners were being contacted for right of way through their property. Discussion ensued. Ms. Bunch stated there would be five lanes at the western boundary of Spring Creek Center which was proposed to extend to the Johnson city limits and at that point Joyce • would become a four lane divided boulevard. Discussion ensued regarding Shephard Lane and Ms. Bunch stated a light would be installed at that location and is being 100% funded by the mall and Northwest Village. Further Ms. Bunch stated there would dual turn lanes at Shephard Lane and at Joyce. Mr. Franklin stated a joint radio traffic system was being installed which would coordinate the traffic in the subject area including Main Street, Zion Road, Shephard Lane, Joyce Street, and Mall Avenue. Discussion ensued regarding the capabilities of the subject radio traffic light system. Ms. Johnson inquired regarding a proposed "fly over" south of the mall. Mr. Venable stated this was put under the Transportation Improve Program (TIP) and there were three scenarios. He stated it was included in the City's 5 year program but he was not certain what the Highway Department's position regarding same was. Discussion ensued. Mr. Venable stated dialogue would be pursued regarding same and Ms. Little requested as much information as possible be provided to the Commission prior to the next meeting regarding the subject rezoning. Mr. Milholland commented he had spoken to the Highway Department and all they had was an aerial photograph with red ink marking the proposed location of the "fly over." Regarding an exit ramp from the "fly over", Mr. Milholland stated the Highway Department stated it was possible but not practical due to elevation. Ms. Little stated Mall Lane was prohibited from tying in due to the location of the creek. Ms. Bunch stated there had been a requested to place the Gregg Street widening project as the top priority to get funding for same. She stated cost share would be 800/o/20% on construction from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. Mr. Allred stated part of the road at Mud Creek would be relocated. Discussion ensued regarding creeks in the subject area. . Mr. Milholland presented two maps showing the subject tract and phases of proposed development. Discussion ensued regarding creek locations, development phases, percent of land in the flood way, total acreage per phase, and natural buffer dedication between the surrounding residential zones. Regarding cooperation between the adjoining CA Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 Page 3 residential zones and the developers, Mr. Milholland stated they would provide a 20 feet natural buffer on the east side of Centerbrook, north side all the way to Gregg would have a 15 feet buffer, and along the eastern boundary of Lenham Heights there would be a 15 feet buffer. Further he stated, they would provide the required wall on the commercial side of the buffer. Discussion ensued. Mr. Milholland stated the adjoining property owners were given a line item veto on use units allowed under C-2 zoning. Discussion ensued. Mr. Irwin stated they had initially approached the Planning Department to coordinate efforts and achieve a consensus regarding the development of the subject area. He further stated construction of the street infrastructure might limit the type of uses they could do and maintain economic feasibility. Discussion ensued regarding Shiloh Drive and traffic flow and the Master Street Plan. Mr. Irwin stated the flood way area would be donated to parks and by subtracting additional acreage for roads and buffers there would only be 250 acres for C-2 development. He stated Phase I would contain large retail and hotel uses, Phase II would contain offices and mixed uses, Phases III and IV would be retail. He further stated Phase I would be completed in a 2 year time frame and subsequent phases would be developed in 1995 to 2002 with Phase IV completed by 2005. He stated the developer would be economically limited to office and retail. Discussion ensued and Mr. Irwin stated there would be 2 million square feet of building area in the entire project. • Mr. Peters gave a traffic engineering report. He stated there were opportunities to coordinate with the Highway Department to ensure the best access is provided through the area during development. Further he stated there were several options regarding the "fly over" and ramps which prevented the developer from setting aside land but options could be pursued to dove tail with future improvements. Discussion ensued regarding the various proposed options. He stated that if the fly over were constructed the bridge to Shiloh would not go anywhere but the effect of the Shiloh connection would be taken care of via an alternate route. Mr. Peters stated the preliminary numbers of traffic in a I million square feet mixed use development would be about 40,000 vehicles per day at build out. Mr. Allred inquired when they projected they would reach build out and Mr. Peters stated it would be in 10 to 15 years. Discussion ensued. Mr. Irwin stated the infrastructure expense to the City would be in the $4 to $6 million range which would easily be generated in sale tax base. Discussion ensued traffic generation and Mr. Peters stated the mall would generate 50% of the traffic and Spring Creek would generate 25% and NANCHAR would generate 25%. Ms. Little requested that a chart be provided which showed the trip generations compared to usage. Mr. Nickle inquired if the plans as presented would handle the traffic and Mr. Peters stated those numbers were fluid and a more complete study was in process. Discussion ensued regarding when the complete study would be ready and Mr. Peters stated more information was needed regarding fly over and diamond accesses. He stated he planned to contact Mr. Venable regarding cooperation between the City and the Highway Department for improvements. Mr. Peters stated the developer was prepared to build what was necessary to handle the traffic problems and provide access to the subject property. Mr. Irwin urged the Commissioners to reach a consensus regarding a general direction of development for the aa� Planning Commission Minutes August 7, 1995 Page 4 subject tract. Mr. Nickle cautioned that a some point in the future the Master Street Plan would need to be amended to reflect the agreed upon deviation from same. Mr. Irwin stated he would be willing to give the right of way for 5 lanes with 4 lane bridges. Discussion ensued and Mr. Allred stated those were issues to be addressed during the development stage. Ms. Little delineated the staff recommendations and she stated the 2010 Plan did show about 2/3 of the subject area in residential -use and she stressed that residential use included R -O zoning. She stated North Hills Medical Park was developed in R -O. She stated the area south of Spring Creek would be the more limited type development. She urged the Commission to consider whether or not 2 million square feet could be accommodated. Regarding the Lenham Height and Centerbrook agreements, she stated same provided very limited uses. She stated she was comfortable with the C-2 north of Mud Creek and R -O west of Skull Creek. Ms. Little stated C-2 would be required for a large hotel and the "big box" retail buildings. Ms. Little stated she would provide a chart showing use units and coverage limitations involved with C-2 and R -O. Discussion ensued regarding the agreements with Lenham Heights and Centerbrook and whether those restrictions made the uses more in line with C- 1. Discussion ensued regarding postponing discussion until the August 28, 1995 meeting and Mr. Milholland stated he would voluntarily withdraw same under the condition they be first on the agenda for that meeting. Ms. Little stated street alignment issues needed to be explored and engineered. • Mr. Nickle requested the staff to compare the use units of C-2, C- I and R -O. Mr. Odom requested the developer contact the Park's regarding dedication of the flood way area. Ms. Little requested information from the developer on a unified design theme. Meeting adjourned a 2:35 p.m.