HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes march deferralMarch 15, 2012
ITEM NO.: 8 Cont. FILE NO.: MSP12-01
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 15, 2012)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff reviewed the request. Mr. Malone referred to the
graphic and explained the street designations. He indicated the Metroplan as the
regional planning organization who does the transportation planning for Central
Arkansas and as part of this work they have indicated that the currently three
bridges downtown will all be over capacity by the year 2030 and a fourth bridge
will be needed.
The North Little Rock Planning Commission has recommended an amendment to
their Master Street Plan. If both cities place the connection on their Plans then
the regional agency will be able to use federal funding to further study the bridge
to determine the full impacts at this location. Mr. Malone turned the presentation
over to Mr. Jim McKenzie, Executive Director of Metroplan.
Mr. McKenzie provided some history of studies in the area from the 1980s thru
2003. Most of these had centered on the Midtown Freeway or expressway. He
described the alignment of the Midtown route and noting that Interstate 630 had
been constructed such that the Midtown could be built under it along the railroad
tracts. The City of Little Rock removed this route from its plan in the 1990s.
Mr. McKenzie described several developments that are currently on the former
alignment of this route making that location less possible to construct. The
location connecting Chester across the Arkansas River is one of the few
remaining locations where a bridge could be constructed due to development.
The most recent study of the river crossings recommended improvements to
Broadway, Interstate 30 and the need for another bridge. The Highway
Department is moving forward with replacing the Broadway Bridge but due to
restraints (buildings) along Broadway this road can not be widened to the needed
six lanes. A fourth bridge could provide this needed capacity. After the
Broadway Bridge is completed the Highway Department plans to widen Interstate
30, thus for years there will be reduced access across the Arkansas River.
There is a well documented need for a fourth bridge. By placing this on the
Plan, moneys will be available to fully study the impacts to the area and the
transportation system of adding this bridge.
Hal Kemp, representing 100 North Street Q1 LLC, addressed the Commission
and talked about planning processes used by the City for various proposes —
Land Use, Overlays, and Transportation. He noted how citizen involvement and
participation has been 'key' and there has been an attempt to build consensus on
the issues. This has been the process used by the Planning Commission and
City in the past. The Commission continues to do this through its review of
development plans.
3
March 15, 2012
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.
FILE NO.: MSP12-01
Mr. Kemp indicated that his client had purchased this land in 2006 to build an
office building on one of the last river front properties in Little Rock. Currently,
there is a one-story building in the alignment of where an extension of Chester
Street would proceed. If this amendment is made, it would stop development of
this site and adds uncertainty over the development potential of the land. Once
the road is placed on the Plan it affects the entire neighborhood. (Mr. Kemp
described the immediate neighborhood and compared to other neighborhoods in
Little Rock.)
He indicated the bridge was a new idea to this Commission. The uncertainty
caused by adding this bridge to the Plan would cause this neighborhood to go
into decline. He proposed that a study committee be formed to review the idea
of the bridge. The affects on the surrounding area and other uses should be
considered and reviewed. This committee should involve citizens and the
Commission. Citizens should be asked if the need is for this or other capital
issues — drainage and roads. (He provided various examples.)
The Planning Commission has a role in this and should exercise that role. If the
Commission votes yes today, you are not allowing citizen input and considering
traffic impacts. Ask that additional studies be done and input received priory to
approving a major change in use such as this bridge connection.
Mr. Scott Schallhorm, representing Don Henderson and others (the property at
217 North Chester), addressed the Commission. He indicated they seconded
Mr. Kemp's comments. This action puts a 'Mark' on the property and devalues it.
The uncertainty affects the value banks and potential buyers might consider for
the property. This property is along Chester and is narrow in the east -west
direction, any additional right-of-way along the western edge for Chester would
have an impact on the developability of the land and could make it unusable.
Based on the discussion there would be another study on what to do, then we
would still have to figure out where to get the money to build anything. This
forces the property into a purgatory of waiting. It would be better to first see if the
bridge is needed and cost affective, then only after that to discuss adding the
bridge crossing.
Ruth Bell, League of Women Voters, next addressed the Commission. Ms. Bell
indicated the League supported planning but there is a feeling of lack of
information about 'need' for this. It is hard to understand the impacts on other
efforts, such as the River Trail, etc. This might be okay but we just do not know
at this point. If the Commission does approve this, there does need to be
additional planning. It is still worthy of additional study with the involvement of
the Commission, property owners and citizens.
4
March 15, 2012
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.
FILE NO.: MSP12-01
Martha Miller, Department of Heritage, indicated they were also in the
neighborhood along Chester. The building that houses the State's collections is
very close to Chester along the western right-of-way. They are very concerned
about any impacts this change might have on the building and property. There
should be a study done on the location to see if this is the best place or one
closer to the railroad bridge a little to the west. She recommended delay in
action at this time.
Steve Hoffman, 1010 North Street, addressed the Commission. He indicated
they had moved to this location due to the construction of the Interstate 30
Bridge. He did not know if this would take any of their property or would be
immediately to the east of their property. But their parking is along the property
line and they could not afford to lose any parking. That would make their
property unusable.
Mr. McKenzie returned to address the Commission. Mr. McKenzie stated that
the road must be on the Plan in order to justify putting money toward study of
the impacts. He noted that several of the speakers are aware that if they submit
a development plan for their land, the City must within a year purchase their land
or allow them to complete their project. This would reduce the uncertainty
period. He also wants this to be a transparent process and to involve the
owners, neighbors, Commissioners and others. But it must be on the Plan in
order to get these answers everyone is asking.
Mr. Don Henderson, property owner, stated that as a small property owner there
will be an impact on the property.
Commissioner Bill Rector stated how uncertainty had affected a property near
the airport. There needs to be a way to get some certainty on the issue or
shorten the period of uncertainty. Mr. McKenzie indicated the work year starts
July 1 and that he would put it in to start then, if approved. The study would take
six to nine months. If there is no amendment, then there would be no study and
there would be no bridge. There was a discussion about financing the bridge.
Mr. McKenzie stated that if the bridge was not at least under construction in five
years it was not likely to happen at all.
There was a question about why this was an issue now. In part, the studies and
reviews of the other three bridges have re -surfaced the issue of a fourth bridge.
As to the timing of this amendment, the Metroplan Board will be voting on the
work program for July 2012 —June 2013 at their May meeting. It was agreed the
study work could be done without the amendment but was the only way to use
federal money to pay for the study.
5
March 15, 2012
ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE 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.
D