Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpc_11 28 1995LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING SUMMARY AND MINUTE RECORD NOVEMBER 28, 1995 9:00 A.M. I. Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum A Quorum was present being nine (9) in number. II. Approval of the minutes of the October 17, 1995 meeting. The minutes were approved as mailed. III. Members Present: Ramsay Ball Sissi Brandon (arrived after roll call) Diane Chachere Doyle Daniel Herb Hawn Larry Lichty Suzanne McCarthy Bill Putnam Joe Selz Mizan Rahman Ron Woods (arrived after roll call) Members Absent: Pam Adcock City Attorney: Cindy Dawson LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLANNING HEARING AGENDA NOVEMBER 28, 1995 I. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 1. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Removal of Old Oak 2. City Land Use Plan Amendment -- Chenal and Ellis Mountain Districts 3. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Downgrade Chester (I -630 to Wright) and Wright /17th 4. Master Street Plan Amendment -- Realignment of Bowman Road and 36th Street II. OTHER Staff Briefing November 28, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 NAME: LOCATION: REQUEST: SOURCE: STAFF REPORT: A property owner requested Old Black Road. The basic issue is The property owners do not want another route to Cantrell Road. Amend the City Master Street Plan Old Oak /Black between Cantrell and Hinson Remove Old Oak north of Shepard and Black Property Owner Oak not be continued north to increased traffic on Old Oak. to provide their neighbors with Once the request was received (mid - September), Planning and Public Works' Staffs reviewed the request. Staffs in both departments did not find that they were able to support the request and a letter to this effect was sent to the proponent (late September). In early October the proponent requested the item proceed without staff support. Thus a legal advertisment for a Master Street Plan Amendment was published. Staff understands the desire not to increase traffic; however, this road was designed and planned to be more than a local street. The Master Street Plan has shown this connection for at least two decades - long before the actual subdivision development. It is important to provide multiple connections and interconnections between neighborhoods. While it is true, there is a "fortress" mentality which attempts to isolate and control access, this increases travel times, discourages non -auto trips and does not facilitate a sense of community. In Little Rock, we have not required much connection and interconnection. The result in West Little Rock is no connectivity, except arterials with arterials over capacity. Since the only way to do anything is to get into a car and onto an arterial volumes are high. The Suburban Mobility Study conducted by Metroplan several years ago indicated all major west Little Rock roads (arterials) will fail by 2020. while requiring a few collector connections will not alone solve the problem, it should slow the problems advance. To reduce connectivity will only make projected traffic circulation problems worse. November 28, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 1 Cont. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 28, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, informed the Commission that at the request of a property owner an amendment to remove Old Oak was now before the Commission. The property owners were concerned about increased traffic volume and cut - through traffic. As with each plan amendment both Public Works and Planning Staffs reviewed the request and each found they could not support the request. In mid - October the proponent requested the item be forwarded to the Commission. Mr. Malone reviewed the street pattern in the area and discussed Staff's concerns about removing the connection. There was general discussion about street access in the area. David Scherer, Civil Engineer and Bobby Sims, Subdivision Administrator reviewed an approved preliminary plat in the area and raised the issue of stubbing -out the street. Mr. Sims provided information about Black Road widening. There was further discussion on the proposed amendment. The issue was called and by a vote of 0 aye, 9 noes the item failed to be approved. E November 28, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 2 NAME: City Land Use Plan Amendment - Chenal District LOCATION: North of Rock Creek REQUEST: Modification of the Land Use Pattern SOURCE: Landowner STAFF REPORT: The City Planning Staff was asked to review the Land Use Plan in an area north and south of Chenal in the Kirk Road area. The property owner was asking for further intensification of land uses. South of Chenal to Mixed Office and Commercial (removal of last Multifamily) and Office to the north with Single Family changed to Multifamily at the West Loop. Staff agreed to look at the Plan and meet with representatives of the owner. Staff could not limit the review to one ownership and requested that representation of Chenal also meet with Staff to discuss possible land use plan changes. After review of the area and having met with the two major owners affected, Staff does believe some intensification is justified as well as some reconfiguration. There is basic agreement on a plan amendment, however, in order to get agreement on the overall package some additional time is needed. Staff will brief the Commission on most of the changes, but final action cannot occur until early 1996. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 28, 1995) Walter Malone, Planner II, indicated that the property owners and Staff were close to agreement but had not reached an accord yet. However, Staff still wanted to review the changings and the area under consideration. Mr. Malone reviewed the physical area where the amendments will be considered and generally what type of changes are being considered. By unanimous vote the item was deferred to January 16, 1996. November 28, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 3 NAME: Amend the City Master Street Plan LOCATION: Wright Avenue and Chester, south of I -630 REQUEST: Reduce the standards SOURCE: City Staff STAFF REPORT: Traffic Engineering has provided some background information for a Master Street Plan reduction of standards for Wright Avenue and Chester. Additional information will be presented to the Commission at the Public Hearing. Public Works is recommending the downgrade of Wright Avenue to collector standards due to the fact that this route travels through a fully developed section of Little Rock. This roadway carries approximately 13,000 vehicles a day from Broadway to the Missouri Pacific tracks. This section is mostly residential. Due to it's residential nature much of this roadway does not have left turn conflicts which are consistent with commercial zoning. In addition, this section of roadway was previously designated as an arterial prior to the construction of I -630. since the construction of I -630, the traffic demand on this roadway has been reduced significantly since the 1970s. Public Works is recommending the downgrade of Chester Street to collector standards from I -630 south to Roosevelt Road. this section of roadway carries less than 10,000 vehicles a day and is fully developed. Zoning standards should maintain the existing four lane cross section. Future development along this route should maintain the existing section and not reduce the width to 36 foot wide collector standard. This roadway is already constructed to a full four lane cross section from I -630 to Roosevelt Road. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Will be given at the Hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 28, 1995) Bill Henry, Chief Traffic Engineering Division, presented the item to the Commission. Mr. Henry indicated a desire to reduce November 28, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 3 (Cont.) the standards to the existing conditions. Commissioners Daniels and Woods asked questions about three laning of Chester and the proposed library site. Mr. Henry indicated traffic was not expected to increase and the current requirements only discouraged rehabilitation of existing structures. There were a few other questions about traffic issues in the area (Commissioners Lichty and Brandon). The question was called and by a vote of 9 for 0 noes, the plan amendment was approved. 2 November 28, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 NAME: Master Street Plan Amendment - Realignment of Bowman and 36th Street LOCATION: North and west of current Bowman and 36th Street alignments REQUEST: Move adopted alignments SOURCE: City Staff STAFF REPORT: The City Engineer after review of the alignment adopted with the March 1989 White - Daters engineering design, believes a minor change is desirable in the Bowman /36th Street area. This change would bring the proposed alignment closer to the existing road alignment. Currently, the recommended alignment is west of the existing starting just south of 36th Street to well north of the intersection. This realignment should reduce the necessary additional right -of- way demands on some property owners north of 36th Street along the west side of Bowman Road. As before, due to the existing topography additional right -of -way may be necessary for cut -fill (slope) along the new road. If the property owner agrees to allow some of the necessary slope on their property or a retaining wall is constructed, no additional right -of -way would be needed, for this purpose. The Engineering Staff will present drawings to the Commission with the exact alignment at the public housing. It is this "exact" alignment the Commission will be asked to approve. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (NOVEMBER 28, 1995) Since there were several people in attendance for this item and none for Items 1 -3, Item 4 was heard first. David Scherer, Civil Engineer, indicated that the City Engineer agreed to a changed alignment of Bowman Road if the other affected owners agreed. This realignment is to help a property November 28, 1995 Planning Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 Cont. owner wishing to build a church. The other affected owners were notified (19 owners) by the City. Mr. Scherer proceeded to review the proposed change in alignment with the Commission. Most of the affected property owners had gotten copies of the proposed alignment. When asked about the best alignment, Mr. Scherer responded that the Engineering Study looked for the best engineering alignment and assumes that the existing uses, if affected, would be changed anyway due to the road improvement. There was general discussion about Bowman Road construction - likely to be public construction but the City must preserve the right -of -way. In response to a question from Commissioner Hawn, the 36th Street alignment was discussed. In response to the commissioner's question, Mr. Scherer discussed the general cost impacts and cut -fill issues - similar to Bowman Road south of Chenal Parkway. Jame "Jim" Clark, representing the Spatz family, supported the change as proposed. Mr. Clark identified the location the Spatz family property. Bob Harp, representing Unity Church, (church engineer) supported the change as the most cost effect why to improve Bowman Road. The church would prefer the road to go straight north as shown on the realignment. Ruth Tyson, a real estate agent representing Unity Church, would of course prefer the option which takes the least property from the church site. The church does agree that the road must be realigned for safety reasons. In the end, all the properties should experience value increases. Lynn Griffis stated that this had been his home for 33 years and no one seems to be considering this. Mr. Griffis identified his property. Ray James, representing the James family with three members' homes affected stated their family seems to be the most affected. Mr. James agrees there is a safety problem and has witnessed it for 40 years. However, the proposed cut is really going to affect him. Mr. James asked about realigning Bowman to the east. If the realignment is to happen soon, he is against it and if the realignment is 20 years away likely will not be a problem. In response to Mr. James, Mr. Scherer indicated there is no certain time. If it is a public project, the road will not be done for over 10 years. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, the League would ask that the road be aligned so as to reduce (minimize) the destruction of the existing natural features. Ms. Bell asked the City to please keep the environmental aspects in mind. Peggy Myers, 36th Street residents, asked about 36th Street and why it is involved. Mr. Scherer responded and a general discussion of 36th and projected traffic pattern in the area followed. Ms. Myers indicated she and her neighbors wish to maintain the "country atmosphere" of the area. Caroline Bowman, owner at 36th and Bowman, asked about impacts to her property. OA November 28, 1995 Plannincr Hearing ITEM NO.: 4 (Con Staff attempted to answer Ms. Bowman's question. There was additional discussion about changing to help a proposed church while adversely affecting multiple existing homes. Ms. Tyson provided more information about the church's acquisition of the site and involvement with the Master Street Plan. In response to Commissioner Hawn's questions. Staff indicated that the Bowman alignment was adopted in 1989. Commissioner Chachere asked about reviewing alternative routes. Mr. Scherer responded that Staff was happy with the adopted alignment but was considering a proposal to change the alignment as requested by a property owner. In 1989, the existing realignment was determined to be the best. There was further discussion about where this amendment originated. Mr. Malone reviewed the process Staff uses to review requested Master Street Plan changes. The Commission and Mr. Scherer discussed the issues further for best alignment, cost, effects on property owners, etc. At the request of Commissioner Lichty, each owner returned to the podium and stated which option they preferred. All but one who returned asked not to change the Plan. Chairperson Ball suggested that it the request was rejected today, the church should work with the other property owners on a "better" alignment for all. Commissioner Putnam called the question, by a vote of 0 for, 9 noes, and 1 abstention (Daniel) and the item was rejected. fl. November 28, 1995 PLANNING HEARING Mr. Malone presented Patricia Herman, a new Staff Planner, to the Commission. Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, asked that the Commission consider alternative presentation methods so the audience can see them. There was general discussion about methods, seating in the front, etc. Commissioner Brandon moved that the Commission go on record requesting better audio /visual aids. By a vote of 9 for, 0 against, the motion was approved. There being no further business before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m. O C.) W w O z O U O z Z z J CL Cf" lT` LLI H i m m (33 Z w U) m I W ¢ Z i LLi ]I ------------ i a W� LLJ }¢�2¢O LLl C/) m J¢ m W LLF 2 w U m Z Q ¢ LLJ Q 2 U f V 2 Q 2 J 0< - J Z n¢ Y QU Q J m F ¢\ Z 0 2 C!� O i. i m m (33 Z w U) m I W ¢ Z i LLi ]I i a H O zCC w � ¢ w p Lu- U S cr Z LlJ Z Cn - U- U N <w0¢p 0 - 0 � O 0= ¢C� J O] Z Z Q cr Q J v i m m (33 Z w U) m I W ¢ Z i LLi ]I