Consultant outlines URA boundary expansion and four candidate redevelopment sites in Forest Park

Forest Park officials heard a presentation March 13 from planning firm TSW on a draft Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) strategic plan that would expand the city's URA boundary and study four candidate redevelopment sites for mixed-use and workforce housing.

TSW planner Jia Li told the URA that the existing URA along Forest Parkway covers roughly 22 acres and that staff and consultants had mapped a potential expansion to include parcels fronting Jonesboro Road up to the city limits, increasing the study area to about 480 acres. The firm proposed four candidate sites—labeled in the presentation as Site A, Site B (Clayton Plaza), Site C (A2Z Outlet Shopping Center) and a parcel at 4176 Jonesboro Road—for further study, with the goal of narrowing the list to two sites for more detailed concept plans.

The presentation described the four sites as follows: Site A (about six acres, three parcels, two already owned by the URA) near Central Avenue and Springdale Avenue; Site B (Clayton Plaza, a single large commercial parcel of just under 11 acres); Site C (A2Z Outlet, also near 11 acres, with multiple outparcels and several owners); and 4176 Jonesboro Road (two parcels, vacant, lower tax value and some topography constraints). Li said the team used city maps, GIS data and a tax-value review to identify pros and cons for each site, noting differences in ownership, topography, existing structures and relative readiness for redevelopment.

Li said Site A is largely city-owned and “pretty much ready for redevelopment” aside from one small privately owned parcel with a tax value listed in the presentation. She described Site B and Site C as existing shopping centers with large surface parking and some underused back parcels; Site B had a single owner but a higher land-to-value ratio (indicating the owner may want to retain the property), while Site C has multiple owners making assembly more difficult. The Jonesboro Road parcels were described as vacant and lower-cost but constrained by grade and a long, narrow rear parcel.

Board members questioned site constraints and compatibility with residential development. One attendee raised rail noise near Site A; Li acknowledged the railroad across the street could pose a challenge for residential uses and said the team had not yet completed a noise analysis. Another attendee asked about rear access to Clayton Plaza; Li said good connectivity and multiple entrances would be desirable if redevelopment includes housing.

On potential funding and feasibility, a board member asked whether state programs for blighted properties (a Tri-Cities effort mentioned in earlier meetings) might affect redevelopment decisions; staff said they would investigate potential funding sources and report back. The consultants said their next step is to receive direction from the URA on which two sites to study further and to incorporate any additional local information the board provides.

The presentation included visual examples of mixed-use and workforce housing—vertical mixed-use, townhouses, cottage courts and small multifamily buildings—and emphasized streetscape and context-sensitive design as priorities. Li said the team was considering selecting one vacant site and one commercially active site for contrasting concept plans to show different redevelopment approaches.

The URA did not take formal action on the boundary expansion or site selection at the meeting; staff asked the board for direction to narrow sites for detailed analysis and to provide any additional site information to TSW.