Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout111-00 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO. 111 _n0 MICROFILMED A RESOLUTION APPROVING AD00-22 AMENDING THE MASTER STREET PLAN BY ELIMINATING A COLLECTOR STREET BETWEEN PRAIRIE AVENUE AND WEST SIXTH STREET WITHIN THE PROPERTY AT 404 WEST SIXTH STREET, AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE AND WEST SIXTH STREET AND RECLASSIFYING PRAIRIE STREET WEST OF WEST AVENUE AND GOVERNMENT AVENUE BETWEEN PRAIRIE AVENUE AND WEST SIXTH STREET AS COLLECTOR STREETS. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council hereby approves AD00-22 amending the Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street between Prairie Avenue and West Sixth Street within the property at 404 West Sixth Street, at the northeast corner of South School Avenue and West Sixth Street and reclassifying Prairie Street west of West Avenue and Government Avenue between Prairie Avenue and West Sixth Street as collector streets. • • PiAtEit AND APPROVED this 1st day of August , 2000. ATTEST: By: 7S* /.Jv�irf Heather Woodruff, City ClerK J APPROVED: By: Frefl Hanna,`ayor t1/4 f C r • NAME OF FILE: 4a /// �U CROSS REFERENCE: Date Contents of File Initials gtoo .4., ///-av /rm-Od .4 444,frir t , ,ape,) (s %'ak-t j `. < ii.ezie al 0 / )G 4.✓.. i 4�oirr .��� y/G-vv . -� 7 - 9 r4 , d (44, y,c( 4-% Dd Ja 4 o S& 2 4/',9;w&&' lam, . aai, g -9 --Da aA9)/ di' / FAYETTEVPLLE THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Dawn Warrick, Associate Planner FROM: Perry Franklin, Traffic Division Superintenden ' DATE: July 10, 2000 SUBJECT: COLLECTOR STREET ISSUES MILL DISTRICT PROJECT Although I have been out for a couple of weeks, I appreciate you getting the material to me concerning the Mill District project. Back before the Walton Arts Center was constructed, there were attempts to get a collector from North Street south by the proposed Arts Center to south School. This route has been looked at several times through the years. Because of the alignment problem at Prairie Street, the condition of West Ave. south of Center Street and the close proximity of School Ave., I do not believe West Ave will be improved any time soon. After reviewing the material, I feel I must agree with Mr. Ernie Peters recommendation. I do feel that the use of Government Ave. as a collector would be more centrally located between the traffic signal at College & 6th and the traffic signal located at Hill & 6th . Thanks for this opportunity to offer my comments. If you need any further information, please give me a call at 575-8228. PLF/plf 4 FAYETTEVILLE THE CITY OF FAYE11 EVILLE, ARKANSAS 113 W. Mountain St. Fayetteville, AR 72701 Telephone: PLANNING DIVISION CORRESPONDENCE 501-575-8264 TO: Fayetteville Planning Commission FROM: Tim Conklin, City Planner DATE: June 26, 2000 AD 00-22.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) was submitted by Tom Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for property located at the northwest comer of west 6`h Street and south School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is to amend the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street (West Avenue) which is designated to run along the property's western boundary between 6`h Street and Prairie Street. RECOMMENDED MOTION Staff recommends the applicant comply with the condition of the previous Master Street Plan amendment (AD99-01) with the condition that they dedicate the right-of-way for a collector street along the west property line. BACKGROUND On March 22, 1999 the Planning Commission agreed to relocate a proposed collector street on the applicant's property to the west along the abandoned railroad right-of-way which is • designated to run along the property's western boundary between 6th Street and Prairie Street. A condition of approval was that the applicant dedicate sufficient right-of-way along the western boundary of the subject property for a proposed collector street. Staff has attached the 1999 Planning Commission staff report and minutes of the previous request on this item. 410 410 STAFF REVIEW FORM X AGENDA REQUEST CONTRACT REVIEW GRANT REVIEW For the Fayetteville City Council meeting of August 1, 2000 FROM: Tim Conklin Name Planning Public Works Division Department sr REVS& Pot& ACTION REQUIRED: An ordinance for (AD 00-22) amending the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street between Prairie Ave. and W. Sixth Street within the property at 404 W. Sixth Street, at the northeast corner of S. School Ave. and W. Sixth Street and reclassifying Prairie Street west of West Ave. and Government Ave. between Prairie Ave. and W. Sixth Street as collector streets. COST TO CITY: Cost of this Request Account Number Project Number Category/Project Budget Category/Project Name Funds Used To Date Program Name Remaining Balance Fund BUDGET REVIEW: Budgeted Item _ Budget Adjustment Attached Budget Manager Administrative Services Director CONTRACT/GRANT/LEASE REVIEW: GRANTING AGENCY: Acou`nnttinng Manager C. Cit C\ Atot ey Purchasing Officer Date Internal Auditor Date Date ADA Coordinator Date l-11-00 Date STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of this request. Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 on July 10, 2000 to recommend approval and to forward the request to the City Council for final consideration. tmen •irectbr Services Director 7—/G/-cy3 Date Date 717/' Dpt 40 Daate Cross Reference New Item: Yes Prev Ord/Res #: Orig Contract Date: Orig Contract Number: • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 4 AD 00-22.00: Administrative Item (The Mill District, pp 523) was submitted by Tom Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for property located at the northwest corner of west 6ih Street and south School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is to amend the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street (West Avenue) which is designated to run along the property's western boundary between 6th Street and Prairie Street. Odom: • The first item that we have under new business tonight is AD 00-22.00 submitted by Tom Bourdeaux of Town Creek Builders on behalf of Mill District LLC for property located at the northwest corner of west 6`h Street and south School Avenue. The property is zoned C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial and I-1, Heavy Commercial/Light Industrial. The request is to amend the City's Master Street Plan by eliminating a collector street which is designated to run along the property's western boundary between 6t11Street and Prairie Street. Staff recommends that the applicant comply with the conditions of the previous Master Street Plan amendment with the condition that they dedicate the right-of-way for a collector street along the west property line. Staff, are there any other notes that you would like to add to that? Conklin: At your agenda session one of the Commissioners did request Perry Franklin take a look at this item. He has written a response to that and in summary, he does agree with Mr. Ernie Peters, the traffic consultant on this item, with regard to the relocation of West Street over to Government Avenue. That's all I have Odom. I'd ask the applicant to please come forward at this time. Sharp: My name is Robert Sharp. I'm the architect for the Mill District Project on the corner of School Street and 6`h Street. First I want to begin by apologizing for bringing this matter back a year later. When we were working on the project several issues kept coming up. I would like to summarize shortly the information that we have now that we did not have when we came before you previously. We have done some consultation with a traffic engineer, Ernie Peters of Little Rock. We have completed our real estate appraisal and budgets. We've consulted with local urban design organizations such as the UACDC and the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project. We've also done quite a bit of work with the Trails Committee on trying to develop a bicycle trail between 6th Street and the Dickson Street area. We have also just become a lot more familiar with the site. Basically when we look at that site and try to find a way to make it inviting and successful in a vibrant area, the first thing we think of is that this area does not need more asphalt. There are streets everywhere, large amounts of parking everywhere and it just didn't seem to be a good idea to have yet another street going through that Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 5 • property. We've looked at different alternatives and we think the best one is to, if a collector street is needed, have it occur in the Government Avenue right-of-way. The reasons for that are, we think, first of all, it makes West Street a safer street. I think if West Street tied directly into 6th Street it will encourage cut through traffic from 6' Street which is not a good street for that kind of traffic. The site lines are short because of the topography. The street is narrow. It has a big retaining wall on the east side which makes expansion difficult. It has houses right up against the street on the west side which makes expansion difficult. So, I think, in general, making this a wide safe street will be almost impossible. We think that if you encourage more traffic on this chute it will make things very dangerous for the residents along West Avenue. Also, I think that if we use Government Avenue as the collector street it will make a better intersection. It's a four way intersection instead of a T intersection. It would allow traffic flow to go across 6' Street. If it ever did become a signalized intersection it's about half way between Hill Street and School Street. It's a better place for an intersection if traffic ever builds up along that route. We think that eventually will provide better connectivity to the city because Government Street could eventually tie into 15" Street which ties into I-540. In general I think connectivity would be better along that street and the traffic engineer agreed with that assessment. Another issue that has come up is plans for a bicycle path along the western edge of our property. In general the Sidewalks and Trails Committee has been working to develop a bicycle trail along the abandoned railroad right-of-way. They have gotten appraisals on the land and made a commitment to make that a reality. If we could get the collector street moved we could put the bicycle trail on our lot along the western edge which would connect 6'" Street all the way to the downtown area with a nice wooded trail that goes along Town Creek. I think some of this type of alternate transportation is going to be of far more benefit to the city than yet another collector street. The other issue we were concerned a little bit about was where West Street comes into Prairie and takes a short jog and then picks up again. When we talked to the UACDC they said this was the type of intersection that is particularly dangerous to pedestrians because traffic has to make a little zig zag and that is a lot of the problems that they have been having up at the University. I've included that letter in with our submission. A final comment is we think that amending this Master Street Plan is a way to encourage people to develop areas that need help. It's going to be something that the city won't have to spend any money to encourage this development. In fact they will save maintenance fees on this piece of collector street. I don't want to go through all of the petitions and recommendations that we have collected. They are all in this packet that we submitted to you. We've got a lot of support from the neighbors for this scheme. We have support from the Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project, the UACDC, Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks, and finally, today, Perry Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 6 Franklyn issued a memo in which he basically, as Tim Conklin said, agreed that this solution is the better solution for the collector street. I would conclude by asking you to give this consideration one more time and help us to develop this project. Thank you PUBLIC COMMENT: Odom: Thank you Robert. We may have some questions but first I'd like to ask if there is any member of the audience that would like to address us on this issue? Please come forward at this time. Please identify yourself by your name and your address before you begin. Littell: My name is Annee Littell and I live at 411 West South Street which is the corner of West and South. I have a double lot that fronts on West Street. So, even though my address isn't West Street, I feel like I'm a neighbor. I've seen just in the last month an accident where you come over a hill and it's blind and then you go down. People like to come kind of fast. It may be kind of fun to do. A neighbor was pulling out of their driveway and they got hit. Nobody was hurt. I don't think the topography is at all suitable to emphasize that street as more of a collector street. School Street, right next door, I guess is listed as an arterial, but it seems to function as a collector. I'm not sure of all the differences but having that major street right next door, one block away, it seems to me we could funnel traffic coming from the library, assuming that happens, could go up Mountain and down School and School already connects with 6th Street. It just seems to me like having two streets a block apart that are both major collectors is overkill and would really hurt our neighborhood. The street is narrow and has no sidewalks on my block of it. If you were to do what the collector needs, that 70 foot, would be probably impossible to make it truly a collector street. So I would just like to support this as a property owner. Odom: Thank you very much. Was there someone else who wanted to speak to this? If you all could please come up and line up behind each other so we don't spend a lot of time waiting. Ostner: Hi, my name is Alan Ostner. I'm a resident of 111 West Avenue. Pretty much what Annee has just said I really agree with The topography of West Street is really steep. I don't know if you have been over there but we refer to it as the roller coaster. When Dickson empties out at 2:00 am it's a free for all The police would be way too busy if they ever stopped there and tried to pick up drunks and speeders. You can get a great deal of speed going down and then the hill slows you coming up the other side and everyone knows that. They love to do it both Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 7 ways. It is very narrow. Expanding it to the east would be difficult. You would either run into the new library or the big retaining wall at City Hospital, or have to bulldoze houses and living rooms. The point that Rob brought up about the railroad right of way becoming a street between Prairie and 6`h Street, I really agree with. The short jog near Wilson Park comes to mind to me and how difficult that is when you are going along the western edge of Wilson Park and you have to tum and go west and then turn again just to get onto Gregg is very cumbersome. If we have a chance to not create things like that I think it's a good idea Just from a user standpoint. As he said the CDC does recommend that it is dangerous and I can see that from a pedestrian standpoint too. West Street is very dangerous. We've been planning on coming down here as a neighborhood anyway. We need traffic calming. We need a stop sign. The number of near misses far exceeds the number of collisions from backing out, as Annee was saying. The volume is very low on that street but I would bet the number of collisions in perspective to the low volume would make a very high incident rate. I think West is pretty dangerous and I think widening it would exacerbate the problem. Thank you. Kelly: Hello, I'm Laura Kelly. I'm glad Alan brought up the fact ofjoy riding and catching air on the hill. I didn't realize that was ever an occurrence until I was on that street just the other day. I was just walking across West Avenue, there is no sidewalk. I was just walking from one yard to the next and a car, I didn't realize cars tried to catch air. It was going faster than just trying to go fast and it had to veer into the other lane almost into the ditch. As the property owner pulled up a few minutes after, I realized if he had been coming up that hill a moment earlier I would have witnessed a lot of death. I just can't convey enough that the topography there being virtually unalterable. It would be a major revision to cause a safer street to increase or encourage traffic there. Also If anyone has any questions regarding the bicycle plan, I have been working with Chuck Rutherford and the Sidewalk and Trails Committee for years and years and years. How I would love to see this connection down 6th Street. I live down there past 6'1 Street and my son and I are on our bicycles now and we would love a safe way to town. Thank you. Odom: Thank you. Anyone else like to address us on this issue? COMMISSION DISCUSSION: Odom. Then I will close the floor to public discussion and bring it back to the applicant. Does anyone have questions for the applicant or staff? Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 8 Ward: Tim, what are we giving up by giving up this West Avenue? Is this something that the City Council will have to make a final determination on? Conklin: Yes. City Council will have to amend the Master Street Plan in order to relocate it if the motion is to relocate it over to Government Avenue. Once again, back in 1999 the agreement was to relocate it off the alley that was east of the feed mill and move it over to the railroad right-of-way. At that time they agreed to dedicate 70 feet of right-of-way sufficient for a collector street. They did approach the city. I did ask for them to do some research on this and make a presentation to the Planning Commission. As staff I felt that bringing this back a year later after an agreement was made to dedicate the right-of-way that we should have some evidence that this is not a good idea and that we should abandon having a street connection down to 6'" Street. That's why they went out and talked to different groups and got a traffic study done with regard to whether or not it should be at this location or moved further to the west. So to answer your question, are we giving anything up, based on Perry Franklin's letter and the traffic engineer it sounds like we are not really giving anything up other than allowing the Master Street Plan to be amended and there will not be a requirement on their part if they redevelop this industrial site with their mixed use project to have to build that street. Hoover: Tim, is it my understanding then that in lieu of the street they are going to give a right-of-way for the trail coming through their project? Conklin: Let me just make sure everyone is clear on the issue of this right-of-way for the trail. Under our Master Street Plan, within that 70 feet of right-of-way, it has a provision for two 6 foot sidewalks which is a 6 foot sidewalk/multi use trail. That would have been a requirement as part of this project. If we required them to build the street they would have to build the trail. So they are not really giving us the multi use trail if we give up this right-of-way because that would have been a requirement. Odom: But I believe that Commissioner Hoover wanted to make sure we weren't giving that up also. That's part of the plan. It will stay. Conklin: Well, my understanding this evening is they will be going to the Parks Board to ask that the right-of-way for the trail be credited towards their greenspace requirement for their residential units in this facility. I think one question that I have and I asked Chuck Rutherford to raise it this evening was with regard to who would pay for the cost of construction of that trail. Typically the developer would pay for half of the street. So you have a 14 foot from centerline, curb, gutter, Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 9 storm drainage and the 6 foot sidewalk. I do want to make sure when a Large scale development comes through that we do understand who's paying for that trail. I'm not sure who's going to be building that trail. That's what I'm saying this evening. Hoover: That brought up a question, is that how we've handled other developments? That the developer is building the trail in past approvals? Conklin: If there is a Master Street Plan requirement, yes, they are building 6 foot wide sidewalk/multi use trails. We may be giving that up. Rob, I'm not sure if you are able to answer that question tonight. Are you building the trail? Constructing it? Sharp: In the past when we have talked, Tim, informally we were just giving the land for the trail. We are giving the land along our side and also we are giving a piece of land up near Center Street that we've purchased to facilitate the trail. So we are giving them two parcels of land to allow them to build the trail. This trail will be built as they build the entire Prairie Street Trail. We'll be back soon with a large scale development plan that will show all of these details. Odom. Commissioner Hoover, did that answer your question? Hoover: Yes. Thank you. Marr: Tim, I guess my question is the recommendation of city staff was to have it remain the same and now that the additional information has come through would you concur or would you stand by this? Conklin: Well, with regard to the additional information, I would agree that there is reason to relocate it over to Government Street. This information that was submitted to the city at 2:30 on Thursday. Staff was not able to write any new staff report. Since then we were able to get with Perry Franklin and he does agree with Ernie Peters that it is a good idea and something to look at to relocate it over to Government Street. The only concern I had, once again, was relocating over to Government Street we are removing the requirement to construct a trail because normally we don't require people to construct trails on private property whereas, if it was left in that location they would be constructing a 6 foot wide sidewalk/multi use trail. MOTION: Ward: Mr. Chair, I think that with all of this said and to facilitate the redevelopment of Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 10 Shackelford: that area down there, I want to go ahead and recommend approval for AD 00-22 especially since our Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, agrees with you on your concept of moving it over to Government Street. Maybe when it comes back through large scale we will be able to look at some give and take on the trails and so on. But I will recommend approval at this time. I'll second. Odom. I'd like to speak to the motion if I could. I think potentially what you have here is, if in fact the City Council approves the amendment to the Master Street Plan, you don't have the requirement any longer of the trail program. Now I think that Robert is saying that they are going to do that and it's going to be incorporated into their plan, but if we are in fact giving something up it's, number one, city property that we currently have dedicated but number two, it's also the potential loss of use of a trail. Am I right? Conklin: Odom: Conklin: Ward: That's correct. Because there is no longer a requirement that the trail be put there since there's no longer a Master Street Plan requirement. It would make me more comfortable if you incorporated into your motion that this agreement or idea of this dedication of this right-of-way for a trail subject to that. I'll amend my motion to where we do get the dedication of the necessary tracts for. the trail. Shackelford: I'll agree to that on my second. Odom: Bunch: That takes care of my concern. Mr. Chair, then we get back to the question of who is going to build the trail since you are giving up the street and not having to build the street then it seems like, should that be included in the same motion? Odom. I think that would be more properly addressed at the large scale development. Tim, with regard to the construction, who's required to construct the trail? That will be more appropriately addressed at large scale development. Is that correct? Conklin: That is correct. I can tell you right now we typically don't require trails to be built as part of development. That's not a normal requirement. That's why I • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 11 brought it up this evening. I do believe we are potentially giving that up. Bunch: Even though it's not a normal requirement since we are giving up a right-of-way and a street can we include that as a requirement? Is it permissible to do that? Hoffman: Mr. Chair, this may have happened before you were on the Commission, but I think we did require a trail and require that one be constructed on the Marinoni property by the creek or wetland area in lieu of a sidewalk along what would be an unused intersection. So, I would think that we would have an opportunity at that time to make that requirement. Conklin: Yes, we did do that in the past and that sidewalk, instead of having it go along Shiloh Drive we did have it come back in on the property. Hoffman: And it was a trail? Conklin: Yes, it was classified as a trail. Keep in mind we did require that when we did amend the Master Street Plan a year ago that they dedicate 70 feet of right-of-way. We are giving up 70 feet of right-of-way too so I guess to answer your question we have in the past required items from applicants as a condition of amending our Master Street Plan. Marr: Would we require that at this time or at large scale development? Conklin: If you want to make it crystal clear for the applicant you should require it now. I would say in your motion that they would be required to build the trail If you want to wait till large scale development we can also make that a condition of approval at large scale development. I guess I'm concerned about doing that. Legally we don't have any ordinances in place that allow us to require that. Shackelford: I have a question of the applicant and I think this will weigh into this, did you not mention that there is another piece of property that this group owns that you are in negotiations on deeding a part of that property for the trail in another area, is that correct? Sharp: That's right. Shackelford: So, there are other aspects that will go into play here as far as negotiation on the trail and who builds the trail and who's going to pay for the trail. There is another piece of property that the city is looking at trying to get ownership of, is that correct? • • Planning Commission Minutes July 10, 2000 Page 12 Sharp: That's right. Shackelford: I personally think that, that negotiation we could handle at the large scale development. I think we have put the applicant on notice that that is something that we are going to look at in large scale development. I understand the city's position and I don't think we need to give away that right either but I'm not necessarily sure that we have to address that at this point. Odom. Ultimately this is the City Council's call anyway. They will receive copies of our notes and note that we are definitely concerned about who is going to construct the trail. Conklin: That's correct. Odom: But as the motion stands now it does not address who's going to construct the trail only that it be dedicated. Conklin: Yes. Bunch: Mr. Chair, can I make a little bit of a campaign speech here for the Committee for the revision of the Master Street Plan, in looking at this and remembering what West Avenue used to be like between Prairie and Mountain, prior to the time it was widened and paved and what the traffic pattern used to be like then, I would encourage people in the neighborhood to attend the meetings of the Subcommittee, particularly the one this Thursday that has already been announced, to request the change in status of West Avenue between Prairie and Mountain Streets to request to be put back to a local street rather than a collector. If that's what you would like in looking at the comments from the neighbors and the petitions on this, I would encourage you to avail yourselves of that process. Odom. Any further discussion on the motion? Marr: Mr. Chair, I'm in support of the motion to actually change the Master Street Plan. I do want to go on record of saying I would not be in support of losing what would have otherwise been a developed trail by the developer. I think that we had that as part of this approval. That's the one thing I struggle with here. Not only did we have the dedication we would have had it built. So when it comes through with large scale I Just want to make it clear that's the position I'm coming from. I do support this change. Allen: I have the same concern. 06/07/2000 12:04 5014420721 City of Fayetteville Planning Office VIA FACSIMILE ROB SHARP ARCHITECT PAGE 02 1111 June 7, 2000 Dear Tim, Two items have come up in regard to our proposed development on the comer of 6th St and School Ave. in Fayetteville. We wish to request an amendment to the Master St. Plan and a lesser dedication of Right of Way along the southern facade of a two-story building located on the comer of 6th and School. Master St. Plan Amendment ou ^ �z The amendment to the Master St. Plan we are requesting would entail the removal of the continuation of the West St. ROW, which now is located on the west portion of our property. We are requesting either the removal or relocation of this ROW to Prairie and thence east to school, or to Prairie and thence west to Government and then to 6t° ST. The reasons we are requesting this amendment are several. -The proposed intersection of West and 6th would be less than 300 feet from the existing intersection of two primary arterials (6th and School). This separation between the lighted intersection of two primary arterials, and a potentially lighted intersection of a collector ST. and an arterial, may not be far enough to satisfy State traffic standards. .We are presently researching this issue. In any case it may not be enough to satisfy sound traffic planning. -Traffic along West Ave. does not warrant the existence of Collector St. status. Improvement of West is not currently on the city's Capital Improvement Plan and would in all likelihood meet staunch opposition from the residents along West. -The cost of installing the new collector street would be prohibitive in terms of both dollars and land lost, and would probably render the project impossible to complete profitably. Request for a Lesser ROW Dedication A n 00-23 We are also requesting a lesser dedication of Right of Way along 6th St. This lesser dedication would only apply to the area adjacent to an existing two story building near the corner of 6th and School. Current ROW along this section in • front of this building- is now 40 feet from the centerline. We are requesting that the existing right of way remain as is from the comer of 6th and School Avenue to the existing 27' utility easement (the former alley). This building is in good shape • • and is an important component of our development for this block. The 55' ROW P.O. Box 3494 Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2 • 06/07/2000 12:04 5014428721 ROB SHARP ARCHITECT PAGE 03 • component of our development for this block. The 55' ROW rule from centerline on principal arterials was instituted so that a landscaped median might ultimately be placed down the length of 6th St. It is our understanding that the Installation of this median is not likely to ever occur. Please post these requests for public notice as soon as possible so that we might resolve these issues and get our project started. Sincerely, MillB;.*ict Cf7€c/r- i vytP Thomas Bourdeaux, Manager P O. Box 3494 Fayetteville. Arkansas•72702.::. • • TOWN CREEK BUILDERS CONSTRUCTION & PROPERTY MANAGMENT Members of the Planning Commission City of Fayetteville 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 RE. COLLECTOR STREET ISSUES MILL DISTRICT PROJECT Mill District LLC has purchased the property at the northwest comer of the intersection of 6th Street and School avenue, formerly the Campbell Soup Feed Mill, and is attempting to develop a mixed use project on that location. That comer is one of the most visible and important undeveloped properties near downtown Fayetteville As a component of the Mill District's forthcoming Large Scale Development Plan for the redevelopment of this site we feel it is appropriate and necessary to request an amendment to the Master Street Plan. HISTORY The Mill District asked for and received an amendment of the street plan at this location in March 1999 At that time, Campbell Soup still owned the property and the amendment was requested as a contingency of purchase. In the year following this amendment, after more extensive planning and preparation, we have found that this street has a detrimental effect on the design and feel of the new development, on the feasibility of the project, and on the safety of the surrounding neighborhood. When we asked for the previous amendment, we were fighting a deadline that was imposed on us as a part of a complex real estate transaction. In retrospect, we should have studied this aspect of the project more thoroughly. We now have the following information, which in March of 1999 we did not possess: • Consultation with a traffic engineer, Ernest J Peters. • A completed real estate appraisal. • A construction budget based upon schematic designs. P.O. Box 3494 Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2 page 1 • • • Consultation with local urban design organizations such as the UACDC and the Downtown/Dickson Enhancement Project, Inc. • Our work with the sidewalk and trails committee concerning the Prairie Avenue trail has progressed significantly. • Our familiarity with the site and neighborhood has increased dramatically. We regret asking this body to recommit time to this issue; we regret asking the planning staff to use their resources in this manner. However, we simply feel that the best solution for all parties has not been reached, and cannot be reached until this issue is reconsidered. It is our feeling that the Master Street Plan, to be effective, must be a living breathing document; as such, changes must be examined from time to time. THE SOLUTION We are requesting that Collector Street designation on the Master Street Plan be removed from the strip of land located in the western portion of the Feed Mill Property A more suitable alternative — better for the City of Fayetteville, the surrounding neighborhood, and The Mill District — would be a designated route south on West Street, then west on Prairie Street, then south on Government Street to 6th Street. (Please see page 8.) Alternatively, the Planning Commission might consider removing Collector Street designation along West Avenue between Mountain Street and 6th Street. Please refer to our diagrams on pages 5 through 8 to review the various configurations. THE ADVANTAGES • Moving this collector street designation creates a safer street. Directly linking 6th Street to West Avenue will inevitably encourage cut through traffic and increased speeds. Any increased traffic causes concern and danger for those along West Avenue. Neighbors there are concerned with their safety as they back out on to West, and their children play m small yards near the street. Included in this packet is a petition submitted by residents along West opposing this Collector Street designation. (Please see page 19 and pages 21-24.) At one point two blocks north of Prairie, driveways lying just below the crest of a hill suffer very limited site distance. Increases in traffic induced by the new 6th Street connection would make this situation more hazardous than it is presently. • Moving this collector street improves automobile traffic flow between Prairie and 6th Street. Using Government Avenue as this area's outlet to 6th Street eases traffic flow because it allows a four way intersection equally spaced between the existing intersections at School Avenue and Hill Avenue. In addition, a block long jog along Prairie Avenue will be easier to negotiate than a quick zig zag. Wiule this will ease automotive flow adjacent to Prairie Avenue and 6th Street, the two distinct 90 turns between 6th and West should still have the effect of discouraging fast cut through traffic onto West Avenue. P.O. Box 3494 Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2 page 2 • • Moving this collector street provides better connectivity for the city. Because no intersection to the south exists at the point of the proposed intersection of West and 6th, through traffic must be routed either east or west on 6th This makes another turn necessary to reach the neighborhoods and I-540 access that lies south of 6th Avenue. Making Government Avenue a more prominent intersection provides connectivity to neighborhoods lying south of 6th as well as an alternative access to I-540 along 15th Street. As traffic builds in Fayetteville this alternative to I-540 will increase in importance. • The collector street would jeopardize the plans for a bike path to 6th Street through the Mill District. We believe it is important as a matter of principal, and as a part of the 2020 Plan, to encourage and maximize the opportunity for alternative forms of transit. The Mill District and Town Creek Builders have agreed to donate land and have solicited support from other landowners and neighbors in an effort to make the Prairie Street Bike Path a reality. Requiring a dedication of land for an additional street usurps the land available for a bike path. We feel that as a matter of policy, developers should be encouraged to explore alternative forms of transit. • Continuing West Avenue through the Mill District property is not optimal in terms of pedestrian safety. Please refer to the letter provided by the UACDC, pages 14 and 15. They have found that "...intersections too close together, coupled with unaligned streets and cross walk locations, can be quite hazardous to pedestrians." • The project and MSP amendment requested enjoy wide support from the community. Please review the enclosed petitions and letters of support, pages 18 through 24. • Amending the MSP is a way for the city to encourage Urban Pioneers. The Fayetteville General Plan 2020 specifically requests pnvate mixed use development on the south side of town: "Much of south Fayetteville is shown as a mixed use area because it is in need of redevelopment and can accommodate future development."1 The Mill District partnership is taking a real and significant risk in attempting to redevelop this area of town. We have met with significant opposition and skepticism m the financial community as to the viability of this area of town. The resources we would be required to expend on the dedication of land, and possible construction of a street, would reduce the amount available to make this a project of lasting impact and quality. We are hopeful that the successful and profitable completion of this project will provide a rising tide effect for the entire neighborhood and the City as well. It is likely that our project will spur further development in this heretofore downtrodden neighborhood. This project, properly executed, will increase property values in the area, and will provide an exciting and attractive entrance to the Town Square and Town Center from I-540 and the Sixth Street corridor. • Revising the MSP is a Cost Effective method for the city to further their goals. Our request to amend the Master Street Plan will have a great impact on the success of our project and on the contentment of the residents along West Avenue. Yet this 1 Fayetteville General Plan 2020, December 1995, page 74. P.O. Box 3494 Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2 page 3 • • requested amendment will have no negative impact on city coffers. In fact, the city will save maintenance costs by not having to care for yet another street. SUMMARY We are attempting to build a large project that will in every way assist the city in meeting its 2020 goals, assist this area's transition from an industrial realm into a true neighborhood, increase property values, and reduce the need for costly new infrastructure. For all the reasons listed above we ask for your approval of the proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan. ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION Diagrams Context Map page 5 Existing Master Street Plan page 6 Railroad Right of Way Plan page 7 East/West Option page 8 Peter & Associates, Engineers, Incorporated Letter page 9 Peter & Associates Resume and Partial Client List pages 10 - 12 Downtown Dickson Enhancement Project Letter page 13 UACDC Letter pages 14, 15 Bicycle Coalition of the Ozarks Letter pages 16, 17 Letters from the Citizens Art Hobson Letter page 18 Armee Littell Letter page 19 Mikel Lolley Letter page 20 West Avenue Petition pages 21 - 24 P.O. Box 3494 Fayetteville, Arkansas 7270 2 page 4