Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3660 Staff AnalysisApril 28, 1981 Item No. 2 - Z-3660 Owner: Applicant: Location: Request: Purpose: Size: Otter Creek Development Company Ronnie Hall Intersection of I-30 and Mabelvale West Road Rezone from from "R-2" Single Family to "C-3" General Commercial Commercial development 45 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Industrial and Vacant, Zoned "I-2" and "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS This portion of the original request was deferred from the March 24 meeting. The mall site and the 94 acre industrial site were approved by the Board of Directors on April 21. Engineering is still concerned about the traffic impacts of this commercial proposal. The commercial zoning proposed for these two tracts is in conflict with the Suburban Development Plan. If commercial use of this land is permitted, traffic would once again become a major consideration. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends deferral to May 26 and that these properties be readvertised for zoning to "I-2" Light Industrial. COMMISSION ACTION: The applicant stated that he was willing to following the staff recommendation and have the matter readvertised for Light Industrial zoning. The matter was deferred to May 26 on a motion which passed - 11 ayes, 0 noes. May 26, 1981 Item No. 1 - Z-3660 Owner: Otter Creek Development Company Applicant: Ronnie Hall Location: Intersection of I-30 and Mabelvale West Road Request: Rezone from from "R-2" Single Family to "I-2" Light Industrial Purpose: Industrial development Size: 45 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Industrial and Vacant, Zoned "I-2" and "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS No adverse comments have been received regarding this request. The property is shown on the Suburban Development Plan for industrial development. This request is compatible with that plan. The proposal is to develop the property with a variety of industrial uses similar to those already in place on adjacent properties. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval. COMMISSION ACTION The applicant was present, and there were no objectors. After a brief discussion, the Commission moved to approve the application as filed. The motion was passed: 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. March 24, 1981 Item No. 6 - Z-3660 Owner: Otter Creek Development Company Applicant: Ronnie Hall Location: Intersection of I-430 and I-30 Request: Rezone from from "R-2" Single Family to "C-2" Shopping Center, "C-3" General Commercial and "I-2" Light Industrial Purpose: Commercial and industrial development Size: 260 acres + Existing Use: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING North - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" South - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" East - Industrial and Vacant, Zoned "I-2" and "R-2" West - Vacant, Zoned "R-2" PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS This proposal for zoning will provide a site for the proposed regional shopping mall announced in 1980, and this portion of the request is in conformity with the Suburban Development Plan. The remaining part of the request does not conform to the plan entirely, and the City Engineer has raised some important traffic issues. First and foremost in the mind of the City Engineer, is a concern over the proposed major street improvements planned by the developer in connection with this project. The cornerstone of the proposal is a regional shopping mall, having in excess of one million square feet of gross leasable area. Such a development would generate large quantities of traffic in the area. To handle such traffic, the developer has submitted a highly complex road system scheme, which involves a major overhaul of the existing Interstate and Frontage Road systems. The City Engineer is concerned that the subject of money and who will provide the money for these proposed street improvements has not been adequately discussed. Citing the cutbacks in Federal funding, the City Engineer wrote to the Planning Director as follows: March 24, 1981 Item No. 6 - Continued Although the proposed roadway improvements plan has been under consideration for quite some time, no price tag ha3 been volunteered by the developer's consultant, nor has any substantive discussion ensued as to who would pay for the proposed improvements. The City's only involvement in this project, in my opinion, should be that of planned review and coordination. The Highway Department may some day agree to participate in the cost of some of the proposed improvements such as the new bridge, but with federal highway funds currently being cut back, it is difficult to say when such participation may be forthcoming. The developer's position would seem to be that, since the overall roadway improvement plan has been agreed upon, the project should proceed now and details of who is to pay for what can be worked out later. I strongly disagree with this approach. We know that severe congestion will occur if the site is developed without major improvements at the I -430/I-30 Interchange. Therefore, the proposed rezoning of the site is either premature or inappropriate until after the Highway Department and the developer have agreed to a joint improvement program to improve freeway access in the area. (Memorandum, dated 2/24/81) In addition to the traffic considerations, the site does not yet have available sewer service. Sewer service to the site was supposed to be available in Mid -1983. However, recent Federal budget proposals may short-circuit the Southwest Sewer Project because of the additional $7.8 million needed from EPA to complete the project. Regarding the shopping center site, the proposed rezoning is compatible with all City plans for the area, and no other negative comments have been received. The primary issue seems to be one of timing. While the City Planning Staff supports the proposed rezoning and proposed development, it is necessary to be mindful of the one overriding concern about traffic problems and the cost associated with the remedy thereof. Ideally, traffic issues would be solved, the money obtained and the roadway network constructed prior to the opening of the shopping mall, but realistically this almost never happens. Roadways are built to solve a traffic problem, usually after the problem has become critical such as was the case at McCain Mall in North Little Rock and is now being done on Rodney Parham Road. While it is unlikely that all of the specifics can be agreed to at this time relative to who has ultimate responsibility for what costs, it is desirable to assure that all positions are clearly stated on the front end so that there will be no questions as to how these projects can be accomplished in the future. March 24, 1981 Item No. 6 - Continued 1. Two ramps off I-430. 2. A ramp off I-30 to the Westbound Frontage Road east of I-430. 3. The ring road around the mall site. 4. Widening of frontage roads along the mall frontage. 5. Improvement of intersections on the Mabelvale West/Otter Creek Interchange. 6. Construction of all linkages tying this system together. The developer stated that these commitments were, of course, subject to Federal Highway Administration approval. Upon direct questioning, Don McChesney stated that the proposed improvements would accommodate the mall and reiterated his statement that peripheral development could probably not be accommodated by those same items. Commissioner Willard Johnson stated that he wanted some way to assure that the public understood that the proposed new sales tax could not be diverted to pay for this project, fearing that if the public thought that the sales tax being proposed would be used for a project of this type, it might prompt them to vote in opposition to the sales tax. There was some discussion about deferring the matter or about trying to arrive at some contractual arrangement whereby this problem could be solved. Finally, it was agreed that the only clear way to solve this issue would be with the Board of Directors committing the sales tax in the manner in which they propose and making clear that the tax would not be used for these kinds of purposes. This was determined to be a policy matter which would be addressed by the Board of Directors. After the discussion, the Planning Commission moved to approve the zoning of the Otter Creek Mall site to "C-2" Shopping Center and the 94 acre parcel known as Parcel #1, to "I-2" Light Industrial. The motion was passed: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Bill Hastings abstained). A second motion deferring consideration of Tracts 2 and 3, both requested for "C-3" General Commercial, to the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for April 28, was passed: 8 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent and 1 abstention (Hastings abstained). March 24, 1981 Item No. 6 - Continued While the shopping center site Suburban Development Plan, the does not match the plan, with industrial tract. The 45 acre requested is shown on the Subu If the commercial part of this approved, a plan amendment wil STAFF RECOMMENDATION is compatible with the remainder of the application the exception of the s of commercial zoning rban Plan for industrial use. application south of I-30 is 1 be required. Staff makes no recommendation at this time. -COMMISSION ACTION The applicant was present and there were no objectors. The applicant stated that they did wish to defer consideration of tracts labeled 2 and 3 on the staff prepared map to the .April 28, Planning Commission meeting. Beginning the discussion, Don McChesney, City Engineer, stated his position relative to the most recent discussions that have taken place between the City and the developer and traffic engineers hired by the developer to study the situation. McChesney stated that he was in agreement with the traffic engineering consultant, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., that the mall itself could be accommodated with the proposed improvements the developer was offering as a part of the package, including two ramps on I-430, the loop road around the mall, widening of certain roads and ramps and the one-way frontage road proposed for the front of the mall area. He stated that it needed to be made clear that this did not recognize the potential problems coming from peripheral developments. The applicant, represented by Cindy Jones, Planning Director for Broadhead and Associates, made a lengthy presentation to the Planning Commission, showing a conceptual plan of the development. John Wright, from Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. discussed the traffic issues. Sanford Wilbourn, Garver & Garver, talked briefly about the costs involved in the proposed roadway improvements and Eric Phillips, Arkansas Highway Department, discussed briefly the Highway Department's participation in the project in terms of the planning. There was a lengthy discussion among Planning Commissioners and the applicant. Finally, the developer stated a commitment to construct the following items: