HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes april denialApril 26, 2012
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.
TILE NO.: MSP12-01
There was discussion about deferring the item and a motion was made to defer.
Commissioner Nunnley stated a Chester Bridge had been mentioned by
Metroplan previously. He also noted that on many applications owners state
there will be an impact on values that does not mean there will be. There was
more discussion about the uncertainty issue and a need to limit that or provide
some certainty. There was further discussion about funding. Mr. McKenzie
stated a deferral would not be the end of the world. He did note that there had
been numerous planning level studies that all recommended a fourth bridge. It
was now time to study a location and the impacts that would have on the
immediate area and the general traffic pattern on both sides of the river.
Mr. Kemp stated all Mr. McKenzie needed was some reasonable assurance that
both cities supported this. A letter from the Mayor and City Manager might
suffice. But based on previous actions and inactions by the City, they wanted an
ordinance. The question should be: Do we as a City want this location for a
bridge; Do we want to spend our money on this; Do we have the full impacts?
A motion to defer for six weeks was made. There was discussion about whether
it should be moved up to the Board of Directors and if that were a better place to
address this or if the Planning Commission had the duty to more fully address it
first. It was noted by Staff there would not be a citizen committee formed in this
six week period. The six weeks would be use to try to address some of the
issues and concerns raised. The Commission voted to defer the item by a vote
of 9 for, 1 against and 1 absent.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (APRIL 26, 2012)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff reviewed the application with the Commission.
The Transportation model shows a need for a fourth bridge and this change is
requested so that funds can be used to further study this location for impacts and
costs of a bridge at Chester.
Hal Kemp, representing 100 North Street Q1 LLC, addressed the Commission.
This property is north of Chester and is the land through which the road would
have to be constructed. He thanked the Commission for the deferral six weeks
ago and the work since. This has shown there is not agreement at the MetroPlan
Board and that the Highway Department will not fund it and does not support the
addition. If this alignment is placed on the Plan, it would have serious impact on
the property — its marketability and development potential. We do not know if a
bridge could be funded or would be built. The 25,000 trips a day might be a
positive or a negative to this property. We do not know how the bridge would be
built and its construction on this property.
.,�
April 26, 2012
ITEM NO.: D (Co
ILE NO.: MSP12-01
For twelve months this property would be sequestered and would not be paid
anything. Mr. Kemp understands the desire to have the cities have some 'skin —
in -the -game'. But the City of Little Rock does not, only the property owners have
'skin -in -the -game'.
He questioned whether Mayor Stodola would support a fourth bridge or whether
the City would use its capital funds to pay for a bridge. Mr. Kemp noted the
various road construction projects around the area and the inconvenience it
might cause, but noted this was part of being in an urban area. He closed by
asking for a 'No Vote' and let the Board of Directors make any Policy decisions.
Scott Schallhorn, representing G&H Lighting & Power Solutions, addressed the
Commission. He stated he echoed the remarks made by Mr. Kemp. He also
understood the need for 'skin -in -the -game' but only the property owners had
'skin -in -the -game'. There is a real life effect due to the uncertainty that will hurt
this business. The company needs the equity in the property to help run the
business. This will impact the ability of this owner to borrow money to support
their business. He asked for a 'No Vote'.
Commissioner Dillon asked if Chester Street was the only choice. Mr. McKenzie,
MetroPlan, stated that Mayors Hayes and Stodola had asked for a study of a
bridge at Chester Street. The timeframe for such a study should be
approximately twelve (12) months and would provide information on impacts of
the bridge and project costs. Then once the decision makers have the
information a decision to construct the bridge or not could be made.
Commissioner Nunnley asked if it was a viable alternative that the City could
fund this or both cities. If it is important enough to bind the property owners, then
the City should be willing to put up some money.
Commissioner Fountain asked about the process to remove. Tony Bozynski,
Planning Staff, noted that the Midtown Bridge had been taken off previously. It
would be another Master Street Plan Amendment and they generally take a
minimum of ninety (90) days. It was noted that even after a 12 -month study
there might not be a definite answer- still could be unknowns or uncertainties.
What about finding a funding source and getting the funds. There was
discussion about funding and MetroPlan organization/process for projects.
Commissioner Rector noted the Master Street Plan puts encumbrance on
properties around the City. He noted the Kanis corridor. He noted he felt there
was a need to study the location but did not know that this was the best process.
Mr. McKenzie noted that after 50 years of studies there is a need and it would be
in the best long term interests of the region to have a fourth bridge. He noted
there would be an encumbrance on both sides of the River, but that it would be
temporary — twelve months of the study.
7
April 26, 2012
ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP1.2-01
Commissioner Dillon asked if the 'Study' would include where funding sources for
the bridge construction are. Mr. McKenzie indicated it would.
There was discussion about a 14 -month window but on the approval and
requiring a second vote to keep it on the Plan. There was a discussion about
what North Little Rock had done so far (their Planning Commission has
recommended it to their City Council). Commissioner Nunnley stated he liked
the idea of sun -setting this (closure). There was more discussion about funding
of the study. It was noted that it was not a Federal requirement but a
requirement of MetroPlan that it be on the Master Street Plan for funding. Maybe
it could be funded one-third by each city and MetroPlan. It was noted that based
on the timeline provided for Broadway Bridge by the Highway Department and
the timelines discussed for the Chester Bridge, Broadway would be finished
before any thing was done with Chester.
A motion to recommend to the Board of Directors that without a second positive
vote within 14 months, Chester Street would be removed from the Plan. By a
vote of 5 for, 4 against, and 2 absent the motion failed. A motion was made to
approve the Master Street Plan Amendment as filed. By a vote of 0 for, 9
against, and two absent the item failed.
N