Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5334 Staff AnalysisFILE NO.: Z-5334 NAME: West Fourth Street Right-of-way Abandonment LOCATION: Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR (across from Elm Street and U.A.M.S.) REOUEST: To abandon West Fourth Street lying between Block 5 and 12, Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR approximately 13,870 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the right-of-way abandonment of 4th Street conditioned upon the six listed commitments from U.A.M.S. along with the site/landscaping plans submitted for review. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIION: Approval of the right-of-way abandonment of 4th Street per the conditions outlined in the Staff Recommendation. VOTE: 10 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstention (Perkins) CONDITION OR ISSUES UNRESOLVED: See attached letter, site/landscape plans. RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES: None FILE NO.: Z -5334-A NAME: A portion of the alley in Block 5, Plateau Addition LOCATION: The Woodruff Area across from the Universisty of Arkansas for Medical Science and Elm Street. REQUEST: To abandon a portion of a 16 ft. alley lying between lots 9 and 18 Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR approximately 4,000 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of a portion of the alley in Block 5 Plateau Addition conditioned upon on the six listed commitments from U.A.M.S. along with the site/landscaping plans submitted for review. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the abandonment of a portion of the 16 ft. alley located in Plateau Addition per the conditions stated in the Staff Recommendation. VOTE: 10 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstention (Perkins) CONDITION OR ISSUES UNRESOLVED: See attached letter, site/landscape-plans. RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES: None May 8, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO: D NAME: A portion of the alley in Block 5, Plateau Addition LOCATION; The Woodruff Area across from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Elm St. OWNER/APPLICANT: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Fred Harrison, Agent REQUEST: To abandon a portion of a 16' alley lying between Lots 9 and 18 Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas approximately 4000 sq. ft. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need For This Right-of-way The Little Rock Fire Department recommends against abandonment of this portion of right-of-way due to the fact that, if abandoned, only one right-of-way access will remain open which is Elm St. to serve two apartment complexes. 2. Master Street Plan Review of the Master Street Plan indicated no need for this portion of right-of-way to be abandoned. 3. Need For Right-of-way On Adjacent Streets There does exist a need for this portion of right-of-way on the adjacent streets for the purpose of access to the adjacent properties and streets. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-way Terrain This portion of alley right-of-way to be abandoned is physically open from West Fourth Street to Plateau Street. 1 5. Development Potential The development potential expressed to staff is for this portion of right-of-way to become a part of the proposed new research building. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect A variety of uses surround this portion of right-of-way to be abandoned from residential, commercial to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. The effects placed on these uses, if closed, will be limited access and circulation. 7. Neighborhood Position As of this writing no neighborhood position has been voiced to staff. No notice is required when the petitioner is the sole owner of the adjacent properties. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities 1) Arkansas Power and Light Company will need to retain easement rights in the portion of right-of-way to be abandoned until the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences takes title to all parcels adjacent to the proposed abandonment. 2) Southwestern Bell Telephone will need to retain easement rights until a new easement is dedicated and recorded on the final plat. 3) Little Rock Waste Water Utility has an existing sewer main. Therefore, the easement must be retained. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will be extended to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this open and used segment of alley right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of this right-of-way abandonment based on the recommendation from the Fire Department as well as the reluctance of the applicant to submit, as part of this request, a Planned Unit Development detailing the overall development for the area. Subdivision May 8, 1990 Item Nos. C and D PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: April 24, 1990 City Manager, Tom Dalton, represented the City's interest in the request by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to abandon two right-of-ways. Mr. Dalton gave an overview of the issues, as follows: "During January, 1990, a time frame was given to the Medical Center concerning rezoning of the property from R-4, R-5 to a major office use. In March of this year the City Staff which consisted of the Planning Director, Asst. City Manager Charles Nickerson and Mayor Buddy Villines again met with UAMS and reiterated the City's need for more detailed information on the future plans for the growth of the Medical Center. It is obvious to the City that UAMS has future plans because of their continued purchase of property to the north across Markham Street to "A" Street and the east across Elm to Cedar Street. The purchase of these properties is becoming intrusive upon the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest neighborhoods. In order for any right-of-way to be abandoned, the public's interest has to be proven that none exists. Unfortunately, it is for that precise fact that the City's Planning Staff is opposed to the abandonments. No overall plan has been submitted for review for subdivision and zoning regulations. Therefore, the City's staff has not been able to perform a proper assessment of the public interest in regards to the abandonments. At this time, the City would like to change the initial recommendation to deferral rather than denial, and request that UAMS submit detailed plans for the City's staff to properly review. This recommendation is for both items 18 and 19. By changing the recommendation to deferral, the plan can be reviewed according to the zoning and subdivision regulations. There is a strong concern on the City's part regarding parking which UAMS has indicated is some 900 to 1,000 spaces short. So, if a four-story building is added, the City doesn't know if that increases the difference or if the shortage remains the same. UAMS has not been up front by coming in with an overall land use plan. 4 There exists a six year plan dated 1988-1994. There are specific strategies detailed in this plan that will have a major planning impact on the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest neighborhood." Mark Stodola, City Attorney, stated that, "the determination the City has made regarding the application by UAMS for the abandonments is centered around two sets of statutes; A) Whether the public interest and welfare is to be adversely affected or B) alternatively, whether the abandonment of the public right-of-ways is necessary and desirable. The City concedes the fact that it is a creature of the State and derives its powers at the-will of the State through the State Legislature of Arkansas. But most importantly, a particular section of the Arkansas State Codes i.e. § 14-56-412 (f) (1) expressly states that after adoption and filing of a land use plan "no public building or structure ... or public development or redevelopment... shall be acquired, constructed, or authorized unless such a project ... has been submitted to the commission for review, recommendation, and approval as to its conformity with the plan and if not in conformity with the plan then its disapproval of a proposal may be overruled only by a recorded vote of two-thirds of the full membership of the "submitting or authorizing body." Ark. Code. Ann. § 14-56-412 (f) (1) and (2) . After considerable review of the legislative intent behind this statute information sharing between the State and City for neighborhoods is critical. This allows for a vehicle by which to make clear and sound judgement on the request." Fred Harrison, General Counsel for the University of Arkansas, was in attendance to represent the Board of Trustees for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the applicant for both right-of-way abandonments. Mr. Harrison stated that, "he could go into great length on the legal issues, but would not because he is representing a State institution which has constitutional statutory priorities and statutory authority. This is not the case where someone is refusing to go through the process; a process that seems so easy for one to go through. It is also not a situation where there has been a lot of planning by which you have not had anything to do with. The University has been purchasing land across Elm for the last 15 years and since being General Counsel for the past five years, has purchased a lot of land. Construction and renovations have taken place in the five years. UAMS has always been willing to work with the City's staff in the 5 planning process, but feels that the State has the ultimate authority over any construction undertaken. As General Counsel for the State, I would hope that the Commission wouldn't get embroiled in the legal aspects of who has the ultimate authority over the subdivision and zoning regulations of the City. UAMS has simply filed for the abandonment of two rights-of-way and would ask the Commission to vote on the request. It deeply concerns UAMS that the City would request a deferral until UAMS submits a plan for review for which UAMS feels the City has no authority over. It is UAMS' understanding that no City can waive State sovereignty. There are State controls over UAMS, but only through the Board of Trustees. All Trustee meetings are public and any plan can be reviewed at that time. Because of the legal statutes now in place regarding land use as the result of property law, the State is now required to submit filings for the abandonment of any public right-of-way. Based on this statute, UAMS is asking the Commission to vote on the abandonments and not simply defer this request until a Planned Unit Development Plan is submitted for review. The final decision rests with the Board of Directors which UAMS would prefer to deal with regarding its right for abandonment." Clyde Smith, Administrator for State Building Services, spoke about the jurisdiction of the State for State property. He stated, "by act of the legislature, jurisdiction can not be relinquished under any circumstances." Dr. Gary Harper, a family physician, and a member of the Woodruff Neighborhood Committee addressed the Commission. He stated, "he was for the expansion of DAMS but was disappointed when UAMS went in and cleared an entire City block of houses and trees, only to replace them with a paved lot and one or two trees which was unsightly. The neighborhood has met on several occasions with UAMS and he personally feels strongly that UAMS has made attempts to listen to the neighborhood. However, a comprehensive plan is needed to show what UAMS' intent is for the property between Elm and Cedar. The neighborhood would hate to get caught between a struggle between the City and State but some means of protecting the neighborhood has to be reviewed in detail. If UAMS will guarantee that the mature trees will be left then, yes, in his opinion, the street abandonment would be good and the alley abandonment necessary." n Mr. Gregory Ferguson, Chairman of the Woodruff CDBG Neighborhood Committee then addressed the Commission. "There also were two other members of the neighborhood committee present. Mr. Ferguson stated that there probably would have been more members of the Committee present if the meeting would have been held in the evening." Mr. Ferguson stated, "the CDBG Committee's concerns centered around UAMS' lack of interest initially shown to the neighborhood. In a letter to UAMS the Committee recommended the Research Center be placed to the west on other State property, but for some reason, that request was denied. The Committee would like to be on record that its concerns are the lack of landscaping, traffic patterns, parking, and enforcement of assurances that UAMS may give if the abandonments occur." Mrs. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, stated, "the league's interest is the hope that the two entities work together for the betterment of all. Neither entity can function without the other." A Commissioner reiterated the need for both entities to work together. Since being on the Commission the concerns expressed to the Commission is DAMS' lack of parking and splitting out in the neighborhoods. The City and State has to come together and work to resolve the problem. The City needs UAMS and UAMS needs the City. Mr. Harrison responded that, "because the City and State have different jurisdictions, that doesn't mean that discussions can not occur and problems resolved. The Board of Trustees are concerned too about -the parking, but the State has certain statutes which must be protected." At this time, the legalities of the City's rights and the State's rights were discussed among Mr. Stodola and Mr. Harrison. Both felt that their interpretation of the statutes were correct. The only point that the City was willing to concede to is the fact that after the State has gone through the process, a 2/3 vote of the Trustees can overrule any decision rendered by the City. A Commissioner then asked the City Attorney "How does the City propose to bring this issue to a head? Is it through the requested deferral and the consequence the Board of Trustees may take or is there another process that by allowing for a short deferral would resolve the issue?" Mr. Stodola stated, "that would be up to UAMS. obviously, UAMS has conceded that the City has some jurisdiction or they wouldn't be before the Commission with the abandonment request, the City fails to understand that if the City has no jurisdiction over the land use regarding subdivision and zoning, why then would there exist jurisdiction over the abandonment of public right-of-ways. The question is a 7 determination ultimately on whether or not the public welfare and interest is being adversely affected. A deferral would be the most appropriate action." Mr. Harrison stated, "the reason why the State is before the Commission is public rights versus private rights." A considerable amount of discussion continued regarding the attitude of the State toward the City regulations, and the City's attitude regarding the State's jurisdiction. Mr. Harrison was then asked if UAMS would be willing to go through any public review of the plan for the Research Building. Mr. Harrison stated that he was under the impression that the hearing today was for that purpose. He, as General Counsel, could not speak for the Board of Trustees on whether they would be willing to go through any other process. Simply stated, he does not have the authority to agree or disagree to further detailed review by the City. Then Mr. Harrison was asked what type of land use requirements does the State use. Basically all land use review is by the Board of Trustees and rely on the architects hired by the University. Ultimately what is approved is the location, design and contract. The Acting -Chairman stated that it appears the Commission was getting away from the rights-of-way abandonment issues. A representative of the State stated that the City had reviewed the plan. In fact, it was the City who suggested that 4th Street be closed. The six year plan Mr. Dalton referred to earlier is the plan. The City knows as much about what UAMS' future plans are as the Board of Trustees. Mr. Dalton then stated that what has been told to him is the fact that just in the past few years the plan has changedat least four times. It's that uncertainty on UAMS' p art that the City is most concerned about and is requesting the deferral. The six year plan indicates a parking assessment study being done before any new building construction occurs. To the City's knowledge, no study has been done. As City Manager he would suggest to the Board again for a deferral in order to allow for the City Staff and UAMS Staff to meet and address two issues, parking and the continued acquisition of land in the surrounding neighborhoods. This would at least allow the City's staff to formulate some consistant recommendation to offer the Commission. Mr. Harrison reiterated that as a representative of the Board of Trustees, UAMS would prefer a vote for approval or denial. A Commissioner then asked if UAMS was under some type of restraints to begin construction. Mr. Harrison stated the Board of Trustees has given authority to proceed with the process as quickly as possible. Any deferral or delay possibly would be detrimental to the project. City Manager Dalton stated that all the issues regarding the Fire Department objections have been resolved, but it's that fact that the different City departments are contacted individually rather than all departments reviewing the issues as a group that the City is requesting again the deferral. George Wittenberg, Architect for the project, stated he was unsure as to what the City was requesting. It is his policy to go to the City whenever any project is undertaken to find out about the different rules and regulations. He has met several times with the City departments and the neighborhoods. If a deferral is granted short of having the property rezoned, there would not be anything done differently than what has already been done. If the Commission feels that the proper rezoning is needed then give him the information for the Planned Unit Development process. A Commissioner then stated that all the needed information from the City's part has not been fulfilled. Maybe the PUD process would be good for both entities. Continued discussion occurred regarding the time limit on deferral. After which a motion was then made to defer both rights-of-way abandonments for a period of two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstentions, (Perkins and Oleson), and 2 absent. Therefore, the abandonments will be back before the Planning Commission on May 8, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: May 8, 1990 The applicant was represented by Fred Harrison, General Counsel for the Board of Trustees of the university of Arkansas. Several members of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences staff were also in attendance. There were no objectors present. Jim Lawson, Planning Director gave to the Commission the City's recommendation of approval for both abandonments conditioned upon certain conditions and commitments guaranteed by U.A.M.S. Mr. Lawson stated that a meeting had been held between the City staff and Mr. Harry P. Ward, Chancellor of U.A.M.S. where a lot of the concerns the City staff and neighborhood had been resolved. Included in the packet of information given to each Commissioner were letters from the Woodruff neighborhood and a letter from U.A.M.S. containing six commitments. A major concern of the City was the impact of the new research building on the X neighborhood. Jim Lawson then detailed each of the six commitments listed in U.A.M.Ss letter. George Wittenberg, architect for the project, then addressed the Commission on detailing of the site plan and landscaping plan. Jim Lawson further stated that the six commitments, site/landscape plans will be incorporated within the structure of the ordinance for the purpose of future references. Some discussion occurred regarding the parking deficiency. Jim Lawson stated that the City manager and Chancellor Ward both had made commitments to share in the cost for a detailed parking study to be done for U.A.M.S. A more intense police patrol along with signage will begin to prevent future intrusions of the parking problem on the neighborhood. A motion was then made to approve both items C and D conditioned upon the list of six commitments from U.A.M.S. along with the site/landscape plan. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Perkins), 0 absent. 10 May $, 1.990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO: C NAME: West Fourth Street Right-of-way Abandonment LOCATION: Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, across from Elm St. and UAMS. OWNER/APPLICANT: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Fred Harrison, Agent. REQUEST: To abandon West Fourth Street lying between Blocks 5 and 12, Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR approximately 13,870 square feet. STAFF REVIEW. 1. Public Need For This Right-of-way The Fire Department is recommending against this abandonment. Access to the two adjacent apartment complexes will be limited. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan indicated there exists no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need For Right-of-way On Adjacent Streets There does not exist a need for this right-of-way to adjacent streets to help with access and circulation. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-way Terrain This portion of right-of-way to be abandoned is physically open. There exists.some on -street parking. 5. Development Potential The development potential expressed to staff is for this right-of-way to become a part of the proposed new research building. 1 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect A number of land uses surround the site from residential, parking lot, offices and UAMS. The effect of the abandonment would place a limitation on access and circulation to the surrounding land uses. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced to staff. No notice is required when the petitioner is the sole owner of the adjacent property. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities 1) Southwestern Bell will need to retain easement rights until a new easement is dedicated and recorded on the final plat. 2) Little Rock Municipal Water Works has an 8 inch water main within this right-of-way. Also, there are two (2) fire hydrants, therefore, the easement has to be retained and access to the fire hydrants must be maintained. Any necessary relocation of water facilities will be at the developer's expense. 3) Little Rock Waste Water Utility has existing sewer main on 4th Street, therefore, the easement must be retained. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will be extended back to the petitioner for abandonment. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this open and used segment of street right-of-way will return to the public sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of this portion of 4th Street for abandonment based on the recommendation of the Fire Department as well as the reluctance of the applicant to submit as part of this request a Planned Unit Development detailing the overall development for the area. 2 Subdivision May 8, 1990 Item Nos. C and D PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: April 24, 1990 City Manager, Tom Dalton, represented the City's interest in the request by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to abandon two right-of-ways. Mr. Dalton gave an overview of the issues, as follows: "During January, 1990, a time frame was given to the Medical Center concerning rezoning of the property from R-4, R-5 to a major office use. In March of this year the City Staff which consisted of the Planning Director, Asst. City Manager Charles Nickerson and Mayor Buddy Villines again met with UAMS and reiterated the City's need for more detailed information on the future plans for the growth of the Medical Center. It is obvious to the City that UAMS has future plans because of their continued purchase of property to the north across Markham Street to "A" Street and the east across Elm to Cedar Street. The purchase of these properties is becoming intrusive upon the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest neighborhoods. In order for any right-of-way to be abandoned, the public's interest has to be proven that none.exists. Unfortunately, it is for that precise fact that the City's Planning Staff is opposed to the abandonments. No overall plan has been submitted for review for subdivision and zoning regulations. Therefore, the City's staff has not been able to perform a proper assessment of the public interest in regards to the abandonments. At this time, the City would like to change the initial recommendation to deferral rather than denial, and request that UAMS submit detailed plans for the City's staff to properly review. This recommendation is for both items 18 and 19. By changing the recommendation to deferral, the plan can be reviewed according to the zoning and subdivision regulations. There is a strong concern on the City's part regarding parking which UAMS has indicated is some 900 to 1,000 spaces short. So, if a four-story building is added, the City doesn't know if that increases the difference or if the shortage remains the same. UAMS has not been up front by coming in with an overall land use plan. 3 There exists a six year plan dated 1988-1994. There are specific strategies detailed in this plan that will have a major planning impact on the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest neighborhood." Mark Stodola, City Attorney, stated that, "the determination the City has made regarding the application by UAMS for the abandonments is centered around two sets of statutes; A) Whether the public interest and welfare is to be adversely affected or B) alternatively, whether the abandonment of the public right-of-ways is necessary and desirable. The City concedes the fact that it is a creature of the State and derives its powers at the will of the State through the State Legislature of Arkansas. But most importantly, a particular section of the Arkansas State Codes i.e. § 14-56-412 (f) (1) expressly states that after adoption and filing of a land.use plan "no public building or structure ... or public development or redevelopment... shall be acquired, constructed, or authorized unless such a project ... has been submitted to the commission for review, recommendation, and approval as to its conformity with the plan and if not in conformity with the plan then its disapproval of a proposal may be overruled only by a recorded vote of two-thirds of the full membership of the "submitting or authorizing body." Ark. Code. Ann. § 14-56-412 (f) (1) and (2) . After considerable review of the legislative intent behind this statute information sharing between the State and City for neighborhoods is critical. This allows for a vehicle by which to make clear and sound judgement on the request." Fred Harrison, General Counsel for the University of Arkansas, was in attendance to represent the Board of Trustees for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the applicant for both right-of-way abandonments. Mr. Harrison stated that, "he could go into great length on the legal issues, but would not because he is representing a State institution which has constitutional statutory priorities and statutory authority. This is not the case where someone is refusing to go through the process; a process that seems so easy for one to go through. It is also not a situation where there has been a lot of planning by which you have not had anything to do with. The University has been purchasing land across Elm for the last 15 years and since being General Counsel for the past five years, has purchased a lot of land. Construction and renovations have taken place in the five years. UAMS has always been willing to work with the City's staff in the 4 planning process, but feels that the State has the ultimate authority over any construction undertaken. As General Counsel for the State, I would hope that the Commission wouldn't get embroiled in the legal aspects of who has the ultimate authority over -the subdivision and zoning regulations of the City. UAMS has simply filed for the abandonment of two rights-of-way and would ask the Commission to vote on the request. It deeply concerns UAMS that the City would request a deferral until UAMS submits a plan for review for which UAMS feels the City has no authority over. It is UAMS' understanding that no City can waive State sovereignty. There are State controls over UAMS, but only through the Board of Trustees. All Trustee meetings are public and any plan can be reviewed at that time. Because of the legal statutes now in place regarding land use as the result of property law, the State is now required to submit filings for the abandonment of any public right-of-way. Based on this statute, UAXS is asking the Commission to vote on the abandonments and not simply defer this request until a Planned Unit Development Plan is submitted for review. The final decision rests with the Board of Directors which UAMS would prefer to deal with regarding its right for abandonment." Clyde Smith, Administrator for State Building Services, spoke about the jurisdiction of the State for State property. He stated, "by act of the legislature, jurisdiction can not be relinquished under any circumstances." Dr. Gary Harper, a family physician, and a member of the Woodruff Neighborhood Committee addressed the Commission. He stated, "he was for the expansion of DAMS but was disappointed when UAMS went in and cleared an entire City block of houses and trees, only to replace them with a paved lot and one or two trees which was unsightly. The neighborhood has met on several occasions with UAMS and he personally feels strongly that UAMS has made attempts to listen to the neighborhood. However, a comprehensive plan is needed to show what UAMS' intent is for the property between Elm and Cedar. The neighborhood would hate to get caught between a struggle between the City and State but some means of protecting the neighborhood has to be reviewed in detail. If UAMS will guarantee that the mature trees will be left then, yes, in his opinion, the street abandonment-would be good and the alley abandonment necessary." 5 Mr. Gregory Ferguson, Chairman of the Woodruff CDBG Neighborhood Committee then addressed the Commission. "There also were two other members of the neighborhood committee present. Mr. Ferguson stated that there probably would have been more members of the Committee present if the meeting would have been held in the evening." Mr. Ferguson stated, "the CDBG Committee's concerns centered around UAMS' lack of interest initially shown to the neighborhood. In a letter to UAMS the Committee recommended the Research Center be placed to the west on other State property, but for some reason, that request was denied. The Committee would like to be on record that its concerns are the lack of landscaping, traffic patterns, parking, and enforcement of assurances that UAMS may give if the abandonments occur." Mrs. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women -Voters, stated, "the league's interest is the hope that the two entities work together for the betterment of all. Neither entity can function without the other." A Commissioner reiterated the need for both entities to work together. Since being on the Commission the concerns expressed to the Commission is UAMS' lack of parking and splitting out in the neighborhoods. The City and State has to come together and work to resolve the problem. The City needs-UAMS and UAMS needs the City. Mr. Harrison responded that, "because the City and State have different jurisdictions, that doesn't mean that discussions can not occur and problems resolved. The Board of Trustees are concerned too about the parking, but the State has certain statutes which must be protected." At this time, the legalities of the City's rights and the State's rights were discussed among Mr. Stodola and Mr. Harrison. Both felt that their.interpretation of the statutes were correct. The only point that the City was willing to concede to is the fact that after the State has gone through the process, a 2/3 vote of the Trustees can overrule any decision rendered by the City. A Commissioner then asked the City Attorney "How does the City propose to bring this issue to a head? Is it through the requested deferral and the consequence the Board of Trustees may take or is there another process that by allowing for a short deferral would resolve the issue?" Mr. Stodola stated, "that would be up to UAMS. Obviously, UAMS has conceded that the City has some jurisdiction or they wouldn't be before the Commission with the abandonment request, the City fails to understand that if the City has no jurisdiction over the land use regarding subdivision and zoning, why then would there exist jurisdiction over the abandonment of public right-of-ways. The question is a 6 determination ultimately on whether or not the public welfare and interest is being adversely affected. A deferral would be the most appropriate action." Mr. Harrison stated, "the reason why the State is before the Commission is public rights versus private rights." A considerable amount of discussion continued regarding the attitude of the State toward the City regulations, and the City's attitude regarding the State's jurisdiction. Mr. Harrison was then asked if UAMS would be willing to go through any public review of the plan for the Research Building. Mr. Harrison stated that he was under the impression that the hearing today was for that purpose. He, as General Counsel, could riot speak for the Board of Trustees on whether they would be willing to go through any other process. Simply stated, he does not have the authority to agree or disagree to further detailed review by the City. Then Mr. Harrison was asked what type of land use requirements does the State use. Basically all land use review is by the Board of Trustees and rely on the architects hired by the University. Ultimately what is approved is the location, design and contract. The Acting -Chairman stated that it appears the Commission was getting away from the rights -of =way abandonment issues. A representative of the State stated that the City had reviewed the plan. In fact, it was the City who suggested that 4th Street be closed. The six year plan Mr. Dalton referred to earlier is the plan. The City knows as much about what UAMS' future plans are as the Board of Trustees. Mr. Dalton then stated that what has been told to him is the fact that just in the past few years the plan has changed at least four times. It's that uncertainty on UAMS' part that the City is most concerned about and is requesting the deferral. The six year plan indicates a parking assessment study being done before any new building construction occurs. To the City's knowledge, no study has been done. As City Manager he would suggest to the Board again for a deferral in order to allow for the City Staff and UAMS Staff to meet and address two issues, parking and the continued acquisition of land in the surrounding neighborhoods. This would at least allow the City's staff to formulate some consistant recommendation to offer the Commission. Mr. Harrison reiterated that as a representative of the Board of Trustees, UAMS would prefer a vote for approval or denial. A Commissioner then asked if UAMS was under some type of restraints to begin construction. Mr. Harrison stated the Board of Trustees has given authority to proceed with the process as quickly as possible. Any deferral or delay possibly would be detrimental to the project. 7 City Manager Dalton stated that all the issues regarding the Fire Department objections have been resolved, but it's that fact that the different City departments are contacted individually rather than all departments reviewing the issues as a group that the City is requesting again the deferral. George Wittenberg, Architect for the project, stated he was unsure as to what the City was requesting. It is his policy to go to the City whenever any project is undertaken to find out about the different rules and regulations. He has met several times with the City departments and the neighborhoods. If a deferral is granted short of having the property rezoned, there would not be anything done differently than what has already been done. If the Commission feels that the proper rezoning is needed then give him the information for the Planned Unit Development process. A Commissioner then stated that all the needed information from the City's part has not been fulfilled. Maybe the PUD process would be good for both entities. Continued discussion occurred regarding the time limit on deferral. After which a motion was then made to defer both rights-of-way abandonments for a period of two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstentions, (Perkins and Oleson), and 2 absent. Therefore, the abandonments will be back before the Planning Commission on May 8, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: May 8, 1990 The applicant was represented by Fred Harrison, General Counsel for the Board of Trustees of the university of Arkansas. Several members of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences staff were also in attendance. There were no objectors present. Jim Lawson, Planning Director gave to the Commission the City's recommendation of approval for both abandonments conditioned upon certain conditions and commitments guaranteed by U.A.M.S. Mr. Lawson stated that a meeting had been held between the City staff and Mr. Harry P. Ward, Chancellor of U.A.M.S. where a lot of the concerns the City staff and neighborhood had been resolved. Included in the packet of information given to each Commissioner were letters from the Woodruff neighborhood and a letter from U.A.M.S. containing six commitments. A major concern of the City was the impact of the new research building on the neighborhood. Jim Lawson then detailed each of the six commitments listed in U.A.M.Ss letter. George Wittenberg, architect for the project, then addressed the Commission on detailing of the site plan and landscaping plan. Jim Lawson further stated site/landscape plans will structure of the ordinance references. that the six commitments, be incorporated within the for the purpose of future Some discussion occurred regarding the parking deficiency. Jim Lawson stated that the City manager and Chancellor Ward both had made commitments to share in the cost for a detailed parking study to be -done for U.A.M.S. A more intense police patrol along with signage will begin to prevent future intrusions of the parking problem on the neighborhood. A motion was then made to approve both items C and D conditioned upon the list of six commitments from U.A.M.S. along with the site/landscape plan. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Perkins), 0 absent. 9 May 8, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO: D NAME: A portion of the alley in Block 5, Plateau Addition LOCATION; The Woodruff Area across from the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Elm St. OWNER/APPLICANT: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Fred Harrison, Agent REQUEST: To abandon a portion of a 16' alley lying between Lots 9 and 18 Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas approximately 4000 sq. ft. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need For This Right-of-way The Little Rock Fire Department recommends__against abandonment of this portion of right-of-way due to the fact that, if abandoned, only one right-of-way access will remain open which is Elm St. to serve two apartment complexes. 2. Master Street Plan Review of the Master Street Plan indicated no need for this portion of right-of-way to be abandoned. 3. Need For Right-of-way On Adjacent Streets There does exist a need for this portion of right-of-way on the adjacent streets for the purpose of access to the adjacent properties and streets. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-way Terrain This portion of alley right-of-way to be abandoned is physically open from West Fourth Street to Plateau Street. 1 5. Development Potential The development potential expressed to staff is for this portion of right-of-way to become a part of the proposed new research building. 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect A variety of uses surround this portion of right-of-way to be abandoned from residential, commercial to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. The effects placed on these uses, if closed, will be limited access and circulation. 7. Neighborhood Position As of this writing no neighborhood position has been voiced to staff. No notice is required when the petitioner is the sole owner of the adjacent properties. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities 1) Arkansas Power and Light Company will need to retain easement rights in the portion of right-of-way to be abandoned until the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences takes title to all parcels adjacent to the proposed abandonment. 2) Southwestern Bell Telephone will need to retain easement rights until a new easement is dedicated and recorded on the final plat. 3) Little Rock Waste Water Utility has an existing sewer main. Therefore, the easement must be retained. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will be extended to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this open and used segment of alley right-of-way will return to the private sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of this right-of-way abandonment based on the recommendation from the Fire Department as well as the reluctance of the applicant to submit, as part of this request, a Planned Unit Development detailing the overall development for the area. 3 Subdivision May 8, 1990 Item Nos. C and D PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: April 24, 1990 City Manager, Tom Dalton, represented the City's interest in the request by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to abandon two right-of-ways. Mr. Dalton gave an overview of the issues, as follows: "During January, 1990, a time frame was given to the Medical Center concerning rezoning of the property from R-4, R-5 to a major office use. In March of this year the City Staff which consisted of the Planning Director, Asst. City Manager Charles Nickerson and Mayor Buddy Villines again met with UAMS and reiterated the City's need for more detailed information on the future plans for the growth of the Medical Center. It is obvious to the City that UAMS has future plans because of their continued purchase of property to the north across Markham Street to "A" Street and the east across Elm to Cedar Street. The purchase of these properties is becoming intrusive upon the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest neighborhoods. In order for any right-of-way to be abandoned, the public's interest has to be proven that none exists. Unfortunately, it is for that precise fact that the City's Planning Staff is opposed to the abandonments. No overall plan has been submitted for review for subdivision and zoning regulations. Therefore, the City's staff has not been able to perform a proper assessment of the public interest in regards to the abandonments. At this time, the City would like to change the initial recommendation to deferral rather than denial, and request that UAMS submit detailed plans for the City's staff to properly review. This recommendation is for both items 18 and 19. By changing the recommendation to deferral, the plan can be reviewed according to the zoning and subdivision regulations. There is a strong concern on the City's part regarding parking which UAMS has indicated is some 900 to 1,000 spaces short. So, if a four-story building is added, the City doesn't know if that increases the difference or if the shortage remains the same. UAMS has not been up front by coming in with an overall land use plan. ra] There exists a six year plan dated 1988-1994. There are specific strategies detailed in this plan that will have a major planning impact on the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest neighborhood." Mark Stodola, City Attorney, stated that, "the determination the City has made regarding the application by UAMS for the abandonments is centered around two sets of statutes; A) Whether the public interest and welfare is to be adversely affected or B) alternatively, whether the abandonment of the public right-of-ways is necessary and desirable. The City concedes the fact that it is a creature of the State and derives its powers at the -will of the State through the State Legislature of Arkansas. But most importantly, a particular section of the Arkansas State Codes i.e. § 14-56-412 (f) (1) expressly states that after adoption and filing of a land use plan "no public building or structure... or public development or redevelopment... shall be acquired, constructed, or authorized unless such a project ... has been submitted to the commission for review, recommendation, and approval as to its conformity with the plan and if not in conformity with the plan then its disapproval of a proposal may be overruled only by a recorded vote of two-thirds of the full membership of the "submitting or authorizing body." Ark. Code. Ann. 5 14-56-412 (f) (1) and (2) . After considerable review of the legislative intent behind this statute information sharing between the State and City for neighborhoods is critical. This allows for a vehicle by which to make clear and sound judgement on the request." Fred Harrison, General Counsel for the University of Arkansas, was in attendance to represent the Board of Trustees for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the applicant for both right-of-way abandonments. Mr. Harrison stated that, "he could go into great length on the legal issues, but would not because he is representing a State institution which has constitutional statutory priorities and statutory authority. This is not the case where someone is refusing to go through the process; a process that seems so easy for one to go through. It is also not a situation where there has been a lot of planning by which you have not had anything to do with. The University has been purchasing land across Elm for the last 15 years and since being General Counsel for the past five years, has purchased a lot of land. Construction and renovations have taken place in the five years. UAMS has always been willing to work with the City's staff in the 5 planning process, but feels that the State has the ultimate authority over any construction undertaken. As General Counsel for the State, I would hope that the Commission wouldn't get embroiled in the legal aspects of who has the ultimate authority over the subdivision and zoning regulations of the City. UAMS has simply filed for the abandonment of two rights-of-way and would ask the Commission to vote on the request. It deeply concerns UAMS that the City would request a deferral until UAMS submits a plan for review for which UAMS feels the City has no authority over. It is UAMS' understanding that no City can waive State sovereignty. There are State controls over UAMS, but only through the Board of Trustees. All Trustee meetings are public and any plan can be reviewed at that time. Because of the legal statutes now in place regarding land use as the result of property law, the State is now required to submit filings for the abandonment of any public right-of-way. Based on this statute, UAMS is asking the Commission to vote on the abandonments and not simply defer this request until a Planned Unit Development Plan is submitted for review. The final decision rests with the Board of Directors which DAMS would prefer to deal with regarding its right for abandonment." Clyde Smith, Administrator for State Building Services, spoke about the jurisdiction of the State for State property. He stated, "by act of the legislature, jurisdiction can not be relinquished under any circumstances." Dr. Gary Harper, a family physician, and a member of the Woodruff Neighborhood Committee addressed the Commission. He stated, "he was for the expansion of UAMS but was disappointed when UAMS went in and cleared an entire City block of houses and trees, only to replace them with a paved lot and one or two trees which was unsightly. The neighborhood has met on several occasions with UAMS and he personally feels strongly that UAMS has made attempts to listen to the neighborhood. However, a comprehensive plan is needed to show what UAMS' intent is for the property between Elm and Cedar. The neighborhood would hate to get caught between a struggle between the City and State but some means of protecting the neighborhood has to be reviewed in detail. If UAMS will guarantee that the mature trees will be left then, yes, in his opinion, the street abandonment would be good and the alley abandonment necessary." C. Mr. Gregory Ferguson, Chairman of the Woodruff CDBG Neighborhood Committee then addressed the Commission. "There also were two other members of the neighborhood committee present. Mr. Ferguson stated that there probably would have been more members of the Committee present if the meeting would have been held in the evening." Mr. Ferguson stated, "the CDBG Committee's concerns centered around UAMS' lack of interest initially shown to the neighborhood. In a letter to UAMS the Committee recommended the Research Center be placed to the west on other State property, but for some reason, that request was denied. The Committee would like to be on record that its concerns are the lack of landscaping, traffic patterns, parking, and enforcement of assurances that UAMS may give if the abandonments occur." Mrs. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, stated, "the league's interest is the hope that the two entities work together for the betterment of all. Neither entity can function without the other." A Commissioner reiterated the need for both entities to work together. Since being on the Commission the concerns expressed to the Commission is UAMS' lack of parking and splitting out in the neighborhoods. The City and State has to come together and work to resolve the problem. The City needs UAMS and UAMS needs the City. Mr. Harrison responded that, "because the City and State have different jurisdictions, that doesn't mean that discussions__ can not occur and problems resolved. The Board of Trustees are concerned too about -the parking, but the State has certain statutes which must be protected." At this time, the legalities of the City's rights and the State's rights were discussed among Mr. Stodola and Mr. Harrison. Both felt that their interpretation of the statutes were correct. The only point that the City was willing to concede to is the fact that after the State has gone through the process, a 2/3 vote of the Trustees can overrule any decision rendered by the City. A Commissioner then asked the City Attorney "How does the City propose to bring this issue to a head? Is it through the requested deferral and the consequence the Board of Trustees may take or is there another process that by allowing for a short deferral would resolve the issue?" Mr. Stodola stated, "that would be up to UAMS. obviously, UAMS has conceded that the City has some jurisdiction or they wouldn't be before the Commission with the abandonment request, the City fails to understand that if the City has no jurisdiction over the land use regarding subdivision and zoning, why then would there exist jurisdiction over the abandonment of public right-of-ways. The question is a 7 determination ultimately on whether or not the public welfare and interest is being adversely affected. A deferral would be the most appropriate action." Mr. Harrison stated, "the reason why the State is before the Commission is public rights versus private rights." A considerable amount of discussion continued regarding the attitude of the State toward the City regulations, and the City's attitude regarding the State's jurisdiction. Mr. Harrison was then asked if UAMS would be willing to go through any public review of the plan for the Research Building. Mr. Harrison stated that he was under the impression that the hearing today was for that purpose. He, as General Counsel, could not speak for the Board of Trustees on whether they would be willing to go through any other process. Simply stated, he does not have the authority to agree or disagree to further detailed review by the City. Then Mr. Harrison was asked what type of land use requirements does the State use. Basically all land use review is by the Board of Trustees and rely on the architects hired by the University. Ultimately what is approved is the location, design and contract. The Acting -Chairman stated that it appears the Commission was getting away from the rights-of-way abandonment issues. A representative of the State stated that the City had reviewed the plan. In fact, it was the City who suggested that 4th Street be closed. The six year plan Mr. Dalton rsferred to earlier is the plan. The City knows as much about what UAMS' future plans are as the Board of Trustees. Mr. Dalton then stated that what has been told to him is the fact that just in the past few years the plan has changed at least four times. It's that uncertainty on UAMS' part that the City is most concerned about and is requesting the deferral. The six year plan indicates a parking assessment study being done before any new building construction occurs. To the City's knowledge, no study has been done. As City Manager he would suggest to the Board again for a deferral in order to allow for the City Staff and UAMS Staff to meet and address two issues, parking and the continued acquisition of land in the surrounding neighborhoods. This would at least allow the City's staff to formulate some consistant recommendation to offer the Commission. Mr. Harrison reiterated that as a representative of the Board of Trustees, UAMS would prefer a vote for approval or denial. A Commissioner then asked if UAMS was under some type of restraints to begin construction. Mr. Harrison stated the Board of Trustees has given authority to proceed with the process as quickly as possible. Any deferral or delay possibly would be detrimental to the project. City Manager Dalton stated that all the issues regarding the Fire Department objections have been resolved, but it's that fact that the different City departments are contacted individually rather than all departments reviewing the issues as a group that the City is requesting again the deferral. George Wittenberg, Architect for the project, stated he was unsure as to what the City was requesting. It is his policy to go to the City whenever any project is undertaken to find out about the different rules and regulations. He has met several times with the City departments and the neighborhoods. If a deferral is granted short of having the property rezoned, there would not be anything done differently than what has already been done. If the Commission feels that the proper rezoning is needed then give him the information for the Planned Unit Development process. A Commissioner then stated that all the needed information from the City's part has not been fulfilled. Maybe the PUD process would be good for both entities. Continued discussion occurred regarding the time limit on deferral. After which a motion was then made to defer both rights-of-way abandonments for a period of two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstentions, (Perkins and Oleson), and 2 absent. Therefore, the abandonments will be back before the Planning Commission on May 8, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: May 8, 1990 The applicant was represented by Fred Harrison, General Counsel for the Board of Trustees of the university of Arkansas. Several members of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences staff were also in attendance. There were no objectors present. Jim Lawson, Planning Director gave to the Commission the City's recommendation of approval for both abandonments conditioned upon certain conditions and commitments guaranteed by U.A.M.S. Mr. Lawson stated that a meeting had been held between the City staff and Mr. Harry P. Ward, Chancellor of U.A.M.S. where a lot of the concerns the City staff and neighborhood had been resolved. Included in the packet of information given to each Commissioner were letters from the Woodruff neighborhood and a letter from U.A.M.S. containing six commitments. A major concern of the City was the impact of the new research building on the 9 neighborhood. Jim Lawson then detailed each of the six commitments listed in U.A.M.Ss letter. George Wittenberg, architect for the project, then addressed the Commission on detailing of the site plan and landscaping plan. Jim Lawson further stated that the six commitments, site/landscape plans will be incorporated within the structure of the ordinance for the purpose of future references. Some discussion occurred regarding the parking deficiency. Jim Lawson stated that the City manager and Chancellor Ward both had made commitments to share in the cost for a detailed parking study to be done for U.A.M.S. -A more intense police patrol along with signage will begin to prevent future intrusions of the parking problem on the neighborhood. A motion was then made to approve both items C and D conditioned upon the list of six commitments from U.A.M.S. along with the site/landscape plan. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Perkins), 0 absent. 10 May Z, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO: C NAME: West Fourth Street Right-of-way Abandonment LOCATION: Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, across from Elm St. and UAMS. OWNER/APPLICANT: University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Fred Harrison, Agent. REQUEST: To abandon West Fourth Street lying between Blocks 5 and 12, Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR approximately 13,870 square feet. STAFF REVIEW• 1. Public Need For This Right-of-way The Fir_e,Department is recommending against this abandonment. Access to the two adjacent apartment complexes will be limited. 2. Master Street Plan The Master Street Plan indicated there exists no need for this right-of-way. 3. Need For Right-of-way On Adjacent Streets There does not exist a need for this right-of-way to adjacent streets to help with access and circulation. 4. Characteristics of Right-of-way Terrain This portion of right-of-way to be abandoned is physically open. There exists.some on -street parking. 5. Development Potential The development potential expressed to staff is for this right-of-way to become a part of the proposed new research building. 1 6. Neighborhood Land Use and Effect A number of land uses surround the site from residential, parking lot, offices and UAMS. The effect of the abandonment would place a limitation on access and circulation to the surrounding land uses. 7. Neighborhood Position No neighborhood position has been voiced to staff. No notice is required when the petitioner is the sole owner of the adjacent property. 8. Effect on Public Services or Utilities 1) Southwestern Bell will need to retain easement rights until a new easement is dedicated and recorded on the final plat. 2) Little Rock Municipal Water Works has an 8 inch water main within this right-of-way. Also, there are two (2) fire hydrants, therefore, the easement has to be retained and access to the fire hydrants must be maintained. Any necessary relocation of water facilities will be at the developer's expense. 3) Little Rock Waste Water Utility has existing sewer main on 4th Street, therefore, the easement must be retained. 9. Reversionary Rights All reversionary rights will be extended back to the petitioner for abandonment. 10. Public Welfare and Safety Issues The abandonment of this open and used segment of street right-of-way will return to the public sector a land area that will be productive for the real estate tax base. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of this portion of 4th Street for abandonment based on the recommendation of the Fire Department as well as the reluctance of the applicant to submit as part of this request a Planned Unit Development detailing the overall development for the area. 2 Subdivision May 8, 1990 Item Nos. C and D PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: April 24, 1990 City Manager, Tom Dalton, represented the City's interest in the request by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences to abandon two right-of-ways. Mr. Dalton gave an overview of the issues, as follows: "During January, 1990, a time frame was given to the Medical Center concerning rezoning of the property from R-4, R-5 to a major office use. In March of this year the City Staff which consisted of the Planning Director, Asst. City Manager Charles Nickerson and Mayor Buddy Villines again met with UAMS and reiterated the City's need for more detailed information on the future plans for the growth of the Medical Center. It is obvious to the City that UAMS has future plans because of their continued purchase of property to the north across Markham Street to "A" Street and the east across Elm to Cedar Street. The purchase of these properties is becoming intrusive upon the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest neighborhoods. In order for any right-of-way to be abandoned, the public's interest has to be proven that none -exists. Unfortunately, it is for that precise fact that the City's Planning Staff is opposed to the abandonments. No overall plan has been submitted for review for subdivision and zoning regulations. Therefore, the City's staff has not been able to perform a proper assessment of the public interest in regards to the abandonments. At this time, the City would like to change the initial recommendation to deferral rather than denial, and request that UAMS submit detailed plans for the City's staff to properly review. This recommendation is for both items 18 and 19. By changing the recommendation to deferral, the plan can be reviewed according to the zoning and subdivision regulations. There is a strong concern on the City's part regarding parking which UAMS has indicated is some 900 to 1,000 spaces short. So, if a four-story building is added, the City doesn't know if that increases the difference or if the shortage remains the same. UAMS has not been up front by coming in with an overall land use plan. 3 There exists a six year plan dated 1988-1994. There are specific strategies detailed in this plan that will have a major planning impact on the Woodruff and Heights/Hillcrest neighborhood." Mark Stodola, City Attorney, stated that, "the determination the City has made regarding the application by UAMS for the abandonments is centered around two sets of statutes; A) Whether the public interest and welfare is to be adversely affected or B) alternatively, whether the abandonment of the public right-of-ways is necessary and desirable. The City concedes the fact that it is a creature of the State and derives its powers at the will of the State through the State Legislature of Arkansas. But most importantly, a particular section of the Arkansas State Codes i.e. § 14-56-412 (f) (1) expressly states that after adoption and filing of a land -use plan "no public building or structure... or public development or redevelopment... shall be acquired, constructed, or authorized unless such a project ... has been submitted to the commission for review, recommendation, and approval as to its conformity with the plan and if not in conformity with the plan then its disapproval of a proposal may be overruled only by a recorded vote of two-thirds of the full membership of the "submitting or authorizing body." Ark. Code. Ann. § 14-56-412 (f) (1) and (2). After considerable review of the legislative intent behind this statute information sharing between the State and City for neighborhoods is critical. This allows for a vehicle by which to make clear and sound judgement on the request." Fred Harrison, General Counsel for the University of Arkansas, was in attendance to represent the Board of Trustees for the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, the applicant for both right-of-way abandonments. Mr. Harrison stated that, "he could go into great length on the legal issues, but would not because he is representing a State institution which has constitutional statutory priorities and statutory authority. This is not the case where someone is refusing to go through the process; a process that seems so easy for one to go through. It is also not a situation where there has been a lot of planning by which you have not had anything to do with. The University has been purchasing land across Elm for the last 15 years and since being General Counsel for the past five years, has purchased a lot of land. Construction and renovations have taken place in the five years. UAMS has always been willing to work with the City's staff in the 4 planning process, but feels that the State has the ultimate authority over any construction undertaken. As General Counsel for the State, I would hope that the Commission wouldn't get embroiled in the legal aspects of who has the ultimate authority over -the subdivision and zoning regulations of the City. UAMS has simply filed for the abandonment of two rights-of-way and would ask the Commission to vote on the request. It deeply concerns UAMS that the City would request a deferral until UAMS submits a plan for review for which UAMS feels the City has no authority over. It is UAMS' understanding that no City can waive State sovereignty. There are State controls over UAMS, but only through the Board of Trustees. All Trustee meetings are public and any plan can be reviewed at that time. Because of the legal statutes now in place regarding land use as the result of property law, the State is now required to submit filings for the abandonment of any public right-of-way. Based on this statute, UAMS is asking the Commission to vote on the abandonments and not simply defer this request until a Planned Unit Development Plan is submitted for review. The final decision rests with the Board of Directors which DAMS would prefer to deal with regarding its right for abandonment." Clyde Smith, Administrator for State Building Services, spoke about the jurisdiction of the State for State property. He stated, "by act of the legislature, jurisdiction can not be relinquished under any circumstances." Dr. Gary Harper, a family physician, and a member of the Woodruff Neighborhood Committee addressed the Commission. He stated, "he was for the expansion of UAMS but was disappointed when UAMS went in and cleared an entire City block of houses and trees, only to replace them with a paved lot and one or two trees which was unsightly. The neighborhood has met on several occasions with UAMS and he personally feels strongly that UAMS has made attempts to listen to the neighborhood. However, a comprehensive plan is needed to show what UAMS' intent is for the property between Elm and Cedar. The neighborhood would hate to get caught between a struggle between the City and State but some means of protecting the neighborhood has to be reviewed in detail. If UAMS will guarantee that the mature trees will be left then, yes, in his opinion, the street abandonment would be good and the alley abandonment necessary." 01 Mr. Gregory Ferguson, Chairman of the Woodruff CDBG Neighborhood Committee then addressed the Commission. "There also were two other members of the neighborhood committee present. Mr. Ferguson stated that there probably would have been more members of the Committee present if the meeting would have been held in the evening." Mr. Ferguson stated, "the CDBG Committee's concerns centered around UAMS' lack of interest initially shown to the neighborhood. In a letter to UAMS the Committee recommended the Research Center be placed to the west on other State property, but for some reason, that request was denied. The Committee would like to be on record that its concerns are the lack of landscaping, traffic patterns, parking, and enforcement of assurances that UAMS may give if the abandonments occur." Mrs. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters, stated, "the league's interest is the hope that the two entities work together for the betterment of all. Neither entity can function without the other." A Commissioner reiterated the need for both entities to work together. Since being on the Commission the concerns expressed to the Commission is UAMS' lack of parking and splitting out in the neighborhoods. The City and State has to come together and work to resolve the problem. The City needs-UAMS and UAMS needs the City. Mr. Harrison responded that, "because the City and State have different jurisdictions, that doesn't mean that discussions can not occur and problems resolved. The Board of Trustees are concerned too about the parking, but the State has certain statutes which must be protected." At this time, the legalities of the City's rights and the State's rights were discussed among Mr. Stodola and Mr. Harrison. Both felt that their -interpretation of the statutes were correct. The only point that the City was willing to concede to is the fact that after the State has gone through the process, a 2/3 vote of the Trustees can overrule any decision rendered by the City. A Commissioner then asked the City Attorney "How does the City propose to bring this issue to a head? Is it through the requested deferral and the consequence the Board of Trustees may take or is there another process that by allowing for a short deferral would resolve the issue?" Mr. Stodola stated, "that would be up to UAMS. Obviously, UAMS has conceded that the City has some jurisdiction or they wouldn't be before the Commission with the abandonment request, the City fails to understand that if the City has no jurisdiction over the land use regarding subdivision and zoning, why then would there exist jurisdiction over the abandonment of public right-of-ways. The question is a determination ultimately on whether or not the public welfare and interest is being adversely affected. A deferral would be the most appropriate action." Mr. Harrison stated, "the reason why the State is before the Commission is public rights versus private rights." A considerable amount of discussion continued regarding the attitude of the State toward the City regulations, and the City's attitude regarding the State's jurisdiction. Mr. Harrison was then asked if UAMS would be willing to go through any public review of the plan for the Research Building. Mr. Harrison stated that he was under the impression that the hearing today was for that purpose. He, as General Counsel, could riot speak for the Board of Trustees on whether they would be willing to go through any other process. Simply stated, he does not have the authority to agree or disagree to further detailed review by the City. Then Mr. Harrison was asked what type of land use requirements does the State use. Basically all land use review is by the Board of Trustees and rely on the architects hired by the University. Ultimately what is approved is the location, design and contract. The Acting -Chairman stated that it appears the Commission was getting away from the rights -of.: -way abandonment issues. A representative of the State stated that the City had reviewed the plan. In fact, it was the City who suggested that 4th Street be closed. The six year plan Mr. Dalton referred to earlier is the plan. The City knows as much about what UAMS' future plans are as the Board of Trustees. Mr. Dalton then stated that what has been told to him is the fact that just in the past few years the plan has changed at least four times. It's that uncertainty on DAMS' part that the City is most concerned about and is requesting the deferral. The six year plan indicates a parking assessment study being done before any new building construction occurs. To the City's knowledge, no study has been done. As City Manager he would suggest to the Board again for a deferral in order to allow for the City Staff and UAMS Staff to meet and address two issues, parking and the continued acquisition of land in the surrounding neighborhoods. This would at least allow the City's staff to formulate some consistant recommendation to offer the Commission. Mr. Harrison reiterated that as a representative of the Board of Trustees, UAMS would prefer a vote for approval or denial. A Commissioner then asked if UAMS was under some type of restraints to begin construction. Mr. Harrison stated the Board of Trustees has given authority to proceed with the process as quickly as possible. Any deferral or delay possibly would be detrimental to the project. 7 City Manager Dalton stated that all the issues regarding the Fire Department objections have been resolved, but it's that fact that the different City departments are contacted individually rather than all departments reviewing the issues as a group that the City is requesting again the deferral. George Wittenberg, Architect for the project, stated he was unsure as to what the City was requesting. It is his policy to go to the City whenever any project is undertaken to find out about the different rules and regulations. He has met several times with the City departments and the neighborhoods. If a deferral is granted short of having the property rezoned, there would not be anything done differently than what has already been done. If the Commission feels that the proper rezoning is needed then give him the information for the Planned Unit Development process. A Commissioner then stated that all the needed information from the City's part has not been fulfilled. Maybe the PUD process would be good for both entities. Continued discussion occurred regarding the time limit on deferral. After which a motion was then made to defer both rights-of-way abandonments for a period of two weeks. The motion passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 1 nay, 2 abstentions, (Perkins and Oleson), and 2 absent. Therefore, the abandonments will be back before the Planning Commission on May 8, 1990. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: May 8, 1990 The applicant was represented by Fred Harrison, General Counsel for the Board of Trustees of the university of Arkansas. Several members of the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences staff were also in attendance. There were no objectors present. Jim Lawson, Planning Director gave to the Commission the City's recommendation of approval for both abandonments conditioned upon certain conditions and commitments guaranteed by U.A.M.S. Mr. Lawson stated that a meeting had been held between the City staff and Mr. Harry P. Ward, Chancellor of U.A.M.S. where a lot of the concerns the City staff and neighborhood had been resolved. Included in the packet of information given to each Commissioner were letters from the Woodruff neighborhood and a letter from U.A.M.S. containing six commitments. A major concern of the City was the impact of the new research building on the neighborhood. Jim Lawson then detailed each of the six commitments listed in U.A.M.Ss letter. George Wittenberg, architect for the project, then addressed the Commission on detailing of the site plan and landscaping plan. Jim Lawson further stated that the six commitments, site/landscape plans will be incorporated within the structure of the ordinance for the purpose of future references. Some discussion occurred regarding the parking deficiency. Jim Lawson stated that the City manager and Chancellor Ward both had made commitments to share in the cost for a detailed parking study to be -done for U.A.M.S. A more intense police patrol along with signage will begin to prevent future intrusions of the parking problem on the neighborhood. A motion was then made to approve both items C and D conditioned upon the list of six commitments from U.A.M.S. along with the site/landscape plan. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays, 1 abstention (Perkins), 0 absent. 9 FILE NO.: Z-5334 NAME: West Fourth Street Right-of-way Abandonment LOCATION: Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR (across from Elm Street and U.A.M.S.) REOUEST: To abandon West Fourth Street lying between Block 5 and 12, Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR approximately 13,870 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the right-of-way abandonment of 4th Street conditioned upon the six listed commitments from U.A.M.S. along with the site/landscaping plans submitted for review. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIION: Approval of the right-of-way abandonment of 4th Street per the conditions outlined in the Staff Recommendation. VOTE: 10 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstention (Perkins) CONDITION OR ISSUES UNRESOLVED: See attached letter, site/landscape plans. RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES: None FILE NO.: Z -5334-A NAME: A portion of the alley in Block 5, Plateau Addition LOCATION: The Woodruff Area across from the Universisty of Arkansas for Medical Science and Elm Street. REQUEST: To abandon a portion of a 16 ft. alley lying between lots 9 and 18 Plateau Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR approximately 4,000 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the abandonment of a portion of the alley in Block 5 Plateau Addition conditioned upon on the six listed commitments from U.A.M.S. along with the site/landscaping plans submitted for review. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the abandonment of a portion of the 16 ft. alley located in Plateau Addition per the conditions stated in the Staff Recommendation. VOTE: 10 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstention (Perkins) CONDITION OR ISSUES UNRESOLVED: See attached letter, site/landscape-plans. RIGHT-OF-WAY ISSUES: None