HomeMy WebLinkAboutmintuesJuly 24, 2014
ITEM NO.: 5 Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP14-04
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
(JULY 24, 2014)
Walter Malone, Planning Staff reviewed the proposed changes starting with the Class
— Bike Paths, then Class II- Bike Lanes and Class III — Bike Routes. Jeremy Lewno,
Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator for the City, indicated he was available to answer any
question and also indicated bicycling was becoming more than just recreational use
and the City needed to help provide safer routes for bicycles for both recreational and
transportation related trips. The goal is to make all streets safer for all modes of
transportation.
Chris East, Studio Main and live/work downtown, expressed support for the Bike Plan
changes. Each of the roads have 60 -foot right-of-ways and it is possible to have streets
with bike lanes on such roads. The proposal for 7th Street has been tested with a
`Pop-up' in 2013. Temporary Bike Lanes were used. With Bike Lanes, cars know to
look for bicycles which increases safety for bicycles. When bicyclists know there are
safe places to travel, more people will bike.
Mason Ellis, biker and downtown worker/resident, stated that the downtown environment
had been built as a multifunctional transportation system (walking, horses, bikes, etc).
Now it has been limited to just cars. As a resident of downtown he looks for walking and
bicycle options. The addition of these proposals to the plan adds a good amenity for
downtown. It is Mr. Ellis hope that the plan is what we can come to for Little Rock.
Ed Sergeant, SOMO Board and Governor Mansion District resident, advocated
alternative forms on Chester and 9th Streets. These changes will 'calm' the streets to
make them easier to cross by pedestrians. Supports of these changes are Gibbs
School, Dunbar Middle School, Dunbar Recreation Center, William Library, Art Study,
Quapaw Quarter Association along Chester, and St Edwards School and Little Rock
Parks along 91h Street.
Dale Aclin, Stephens Building, expressed concern about the Bike Lanes on Center and
Louisiana in the two blocks south of Markham. There is a lot of traffic on these roads
and it would not connect to anything else for bicyclists. He also expressed concern
with the hotel related traffic along Markham and non -local drivers.
Mr. Malone indicated that Louisiana from 4th Street to Markham is two-way and in this
section Sharrows would be used rather than Bike Lanes. Staff would amend the
package to show a Class II along Louisiana from 4th to Markham.
Commissioner Nunnley, stated that Staff needed to explain to the residents what was
happening and the advantages. If the local residents' concerns and issues are not
addressed, there will be a `firestorm'. There needs to be discussions and meetings
with the local residents and education efforts made.
4
July 24, 2014
ITEM NO.: 5 (Cont.) FILE NO.: MSP14-04
Commissioner Berry indicated that there had been some meetings to talk with residents
and owners. There was some discussion about traffic and parking issues and the need
for education moving forward so that the City understands the concerns and
residents/owners understand the impacts and advantages.
Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning & Development, indicated there had been meetings
on the package of changes and with the 3/8 cent funded projects there would be an
additional meeting with residents before any work was done. (This would be true for
Chester Street).
Commissioner May reminded the Commission of the `Denver Plan' traffic signal system
in downtown Little Rock and how that had made it easier for pedestrians. Education is
key, people always have concerns when change is involved.
Chairman Fountain asked the speakers who worked downtown how they were about to
bike to work and wear a suit for work. There was some discussion about lockers and
shower facilities.
A motion was made to approve the package as amended without Center Street. By a
vote of 10 for 0 against and 1 absent the motion was approved. A motion was made
to approve the Bike Lane on Center Street, by a vote of 9 for, 0 against, 1 recusal and
1 absent the motion was approved.
�i