Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutstaff report aprilApril 26, 2012 ITEM NO.: D FILE NO.: MSP12-01 Name: Master Street Plan Amendment — Add Chester north of LaHarpe Location: Chester Street and extension, north of LaHarpe crossing the Arkansas River Request: Add Minor Arterial classification north of LaHarpe Source: Staff PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Master Street Plan amendment in the Downtown District to add a Minor Arterial. Chester Street south of LaHarpe is a Minor Arterial south to Wright Avenue. The request would be to continue this classification north of LaHarpe then across the Arkansas River to connect with the Arterial street system in North Little Rock. This would then provide a fourth bridge across the Arkansas River in downtown. MASTER STREET PLAN: Currently, the Master Street Plan shows Chester as a Minor Arterial from LaHarpe to south to Wright Avenue. North of LaHarpe, Chester is a Local Commercial street and goes for one block. LaHarpe is a Principal Arterial. It is State Highway 10 and goes from Interstate 30 west to Fort Smith. There are currently three connections across the Arkansas River: Broadway Bridge (Principal Arterial), Maine Street Bridge (Minor Arterial) and Interstate 30 Bridge (Freeway). BICYCLE PLAN: The bicycle plan shows a Class I - Bike Path along the River (the medical mile, a portion of the Arkansas River Trail). It shows a Class III Bike Route along Markham crossing Chester. However no bike path, lane or route is shown along Chester. PARKS: The Arkansas River Trail is shown on the Little Rock Parks and Recreation Master Plan as an open space. The Plan indicates there is park or open space within eight -blocks of the alignment. HISTORIC DISTRICTS: There are no city recognized historic districts that would be affected by this amendment. April 26, 2012 ITEM NO.: D (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP12-01 ANALYSIS: There have been discussions of a fourth bridge over the Arkansas River in or near downtown Little Rock for years. In fact, until 1995, a fourth vehicular bridge had been proposed. This was the Midtown Expressway and it had a bridge just west of the current railroad bridge. It was to connect Interstate 30 to Interstate 40, with a new road paralleling the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The Broadway Bridge and Interstate 30 Bridge are at, to over capacity currently and Main Street Bridge is around half to two-thirds capacity. Metroplan has indicated an additional 25,000 to 40,000 trips a day are expected by 2030. This would put all the facilities well over capacity. Currently, Chester Street is an Arterial south of LaHarpe to Wright Avenue. The service volume on a four -lane arterial is 18,000 ADT (average daily trips). At LaHarpe, Chester has an ADT of around 8000 and at Interstate 630 around 13,000 ADT. Metroplan estimates that, if built, the new bridge would have 15,000 to 20,000 trips in 2030. These are projected to not be new trips but trips that would have used one of the three existing bridges. Thus the impacts to Chester beyond Capitol should be minimal. Some of the trips could already be on Chester or could return to their current routes prior to getting beyond Capitol Avenue. A Master Street Plan amendment is needed to reclassify Chester Street north of LaHarpe to an Arterial. This would allow regional transportation money to be used for further review of the alignment and fully develop transportation impacts and costs for construction of a new bridge. The North Little Rock Planning Commission has recommended the connection to their City Council. The City of Little Rock's action would complete the connection across the Arkansas River, so that the alignment may be put on the regional transportations plan. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: Notices were sent to the four adjacent property owners and the Downtown Neighborhood Association as well as the Downtown Partnership. Staff has received two contacts on this request indicating their concern with it. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff believes the change is appropriate. 2 April 26, 2012 WALT,] 10003111111 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 constraints (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 April 26, 2012 ITEM NO.: D 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 April 26, 2012 ITEM NO.: D (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. i April 26, 2012 ITEM NO.: D 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. [: Area Map Case: MSP12-01 N Location: Chester and extension, north of LaHarpe Ward: 1 PD: 5 0237.5475 950 Feet CT: 44 TRS: TIN R12W3