Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5360 Staff AnalysisNovember 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 3 FILE NO.: Z-5360 NAME: Pulaski County Detention Facility - Long -Form (PCD) LOCATION: South of Roosevelt Street and East of Brown Street DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: PULASKI COUNTY OFFICE OF THE CTW - ARCHITECT/ENGINEERS COUNTY JUDGE (A JOINT VENTURE) PULASKI COUNTY COURTHOUSE 101 S. Spring Street ATTN: Rita W. Gruber Little Rock, AR 72201 Little Rock, AR 72201 372-4843 371-8305 AREA: 58.2 Ac. NUMBER OF LOTS: 3 FT. NEW STREET: 1770 ZONING: "I-2" and "R-3" PROPOSED USES: Pulaski County Jail PLANNING DISTRICT: Fourche Little Rock - 22 CENSUS TRACT: 12 VARIANCES RE UESTED: 1. Street improvements on Roosevelt and Woodrow. 2. Right-of-way dedication and street improvements on Valentine Street. 3. Street improvements on Brown Street south of 32nd Street. 4. Filing fee. STATEMENT OF PROPOSAL: A new jail for Pualski County is to be constructed on the site adjacent to the existing jail building. The existing hospital building on site will be remodeled for a juvenile justice center. The existing jail building will be remodeled for minimum security jail housing. All core services (food service, administration, laundry) will be provided by the new jail facility and will support the operations in all three buildings. 1 November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 3 Continued The new county jail will provide for booking and housing of all City of Little Rock arrests, replacing current functions at the Little Rock Police Building on Markham Street. The new jail building will contain four levels with the following functions.: Level 1: Intake, release, truck dock services, intake housing units. Level 2: 2nd floor of intake housing and visitor access to intake housing units. Level 3: Main level for all inmate housing; programs, health services, kitchen and laundry, corridors connecting to juvenile center and old jail. Level 4: 2nd floor of housing, visitor center and visitor access to housing units. The building is planned to accommodate the sloping terrain, with the majority of the building being two stories, and only the south portion four stories in height. The first phase of construction will house approximately 816 inmates on the site. The site is planned for future expansion to accommodate a total of 1800 inmates. To operate the initial first phase, the jail will require a total staff of approximately 275 employees. Access to the new jail will be primarily off Roosevelt Road and Brown Street from the north and off 32nd Street from the south. In order to provide contiguous property for construction of the master plan, a portion of Brown Street must be closed and rerouted as indicated on the preliminary plat. A. PROPOSAW REQUEST: This PCD is filed for purpose of the construction of the Pulaski County Jail along the Roosevelt Road and Brown Street. 2 November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 3 Continued B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The site is currently occupied by a hospital building and existing jail. The tract of land is rather rugged. Some modification of the land area has been accomplished in previous site improvements. The roadways are in place which will provide principal means of access to the various units of the jail. C. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: The waivers requested are not technically justified, but should be considered on a public basis. Plans do not indicate if the bus lane on Roosevelt will be constructed by this project. D. ISSUES/LEGALITECH: The issues of concern here are as follows: 1. To clarify if a bus -stop is included in this project. Extend transition zones and stop line to 150' each. 2. The Planning Staff opposes a waiver of street improvements on Woodrow Street, Brown Street south of 32nd Street and Roosevelt in front of the old hospital. 3. Place sidewalks where required by ordinance. 4. Detention and excavation ordinance should be applied. E. ANALYSIS• The Planning Staff view of this proposal is that it is an excellent effort to expand the existing jail facility. This layout is principally designed to accommodate the increasing number of inmates which are produced by the metro area. The remaining design issues to be identified by the Engineers are the bus -stop, sidewalks and street improvements. We feel that these should be recognized as a part of this project. F. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: The Staff recommends approval of the PCD subject to the resolution of the items pointed out in items C and D. 3 November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 3 Continued SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENTS: (November 8, 1990) The applicant was represented by Mr. Gene Levy, George Toombs and Pulaski County Office Representatives. The Planning Staff reported that the application requested several variances which are not technically justified and should be included in this project. The applicant agreed to place sidewalks where required, redesign bus stop lanes and comply with detention and excavation ordinance. The applicant also agreed to meet with City Officials to discuss improvements on Woodrow Street, part of Brown and Roosevelt as a Joint Venture Project. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (November 20, 1990) There were several objectors in attendance., The application was represented by Mr. Gene Levy, George Toombs and several Pulaski County Office Officials. The Planning Staff offered its recommendation of approval of this Long -Form PCD subject to Pulaski County and City of Little Rock reaching agreement on street improvements for all of the west side of Woodrow, part of the south side of Roosevelt, the northern side of 32nd Street and several hundred feet of Brown Street. Mr. Levy, the Architect for the project, made a presentation. He stated that the road improvements waiver had been requested and Mr. Larry Vaught, Attorney for Pulaski County would explain the reasons for the waivers. Mr. Larry Vaught stated that he had already talked to the City Attorney's office, but the agreement on the street improvements has not been reached. He also sated that county officials were concerned about making street improvements that weren't directly adjacent -to the jail. The Sales Tax Ordinance said the money would be used to build the jail, and using the money for street improvements not adjacent to the property could open the way for a legal challenge. 4 November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 3 Continued The Commission Chairman then asked the first objector present, Mr. Cannon, to present his position. Mr. Cannon stated that the use would be a disruptive factor for the neighborhood. The Chairman then recognized another person present desired to offer comments in objection. This person was Ms. Bonnie Cannon. Ms. Cannon stated that she is on welfare and cannot afford to move to another location and at the same time she does not like to live close to the jail. The Chairman then recognized the next objector. Mrs. E. Taylor presented comments on future property value. The Chairman then recognized the next objector, Mr. David Robinson. Mr. Robinson offered additional comments concerning traffic problems and poor location for jail and mistaken location of the street names. The Chairman then recognized Mr. Levy for a closing statement. He stated that drawings were produced by a Civil Engineer and there are no mistakes on these drawings as stated by Mr. Robinson. A lengthy discussion followed involving several of the Commissioners. Commissioner Oleson then requested information on the buffer size. Mr. Levy stated that the size of the buffer is 301, but can be increased. Commissioner Nicholson expressed her concerns on traffic along Roosevelt Road. She pointed out that'additional 275 employees and additional visitors to 1800 inmates would drastically increase traffic. Mr. Levy stated that it would not increase traffic because most of the activities take place in the jail (food preparation, laundry, etc.). Commissioner Walker asked for information on the lighting plan. Mr. Levy described the lighting as being a candle light fixture. The Chairman then requested information concerning traffic pattern for this area. Mr. Wayne Sherrell from the City Traffic Department stated that City has plans to improve Roosevelt to five lanes in the future, but he couldn't narrow down a specific time frame. 9 1 November 20, 1990 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO. 3 Continued A lengthy discussion then followed involving several of the Commissioners and City Staff. It was determined that county would delete footprints of the future expansion of the property west of Brown Street to protect the neighborhood and provide adequate buffer. Commissioner Collins suggested that this item be deferred because too many unanswered questions concerning this project remained. The motion was made to defer this item for two weeks. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 7 nays, and 2 absent. The Chair called the question to reconsider this item. Jim Lawson of the Planning Staff then stated that the Staff will work with the County to resolve street improvement issues. Commissioner Riddick called the question to approve the application as amended with deleted footprints of the future expansion west of Brown Street and with recommendation of denial of all waivers. A motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes, 1 nay, 1 abstention, and 2 absent. 11