Collector's Edition

Tying to explain how round pegs work better in round holes:

Thank you for including me on the recent committee review. The Case Study done on my property at 3217 JFK did help address some major problems in the plan, when it was determined that changing the Use for a location, without exterior remodeling, would not trigger an expensive redesign of the property. Keep the exterior building the same and a different type of permitted business can now occupy the location without expensive property changes.

That's one major problem down.

But in the event of a tornado or future development, something even more major that I didn't discover until working on the committee is that there are multiple designs for the Park Hill businesses. The "Pedestrian Priority" designation is for only a handful of blocks, which includes my own. I would like to point out that of the 4 person majority who voted to include the separate PRIORITY classification, NONE were affected by it. I am the only property or business owner in the committee who fell within this classification, and remain opposed.

While the rest of Park Hill is slated for the less intrusive "Pedestrian Preferred" design, the difference between it and "Pedestrian Priority" is stark. I asked Jenna and Bernadette for a clarification, which they provided:

"Ped Priority is 5' min. setback ­ 15' max. setback, and 70% minimum building frontage, which means at least 70% of the building's façade line is required to be located within the BTZ as a proportion of the lot's width along the fronting public street."

When asked for clarification if the 70% referred to the size of the building or the size of the lot, the response was:

"It means that for ped priority streets, 70% of the lot width must be covered in building frontage, so if you have a 100-ft. lot, 70 ft of your street frontage has to have building on it, built within the build-to-zone."

That's actually a worse case scenario with my property being so hilly. The Hill's change in elevation is accentuated by the fact that my property is on 2 & 1/2 Lots. Using the half as deep as wide formula on my 165-foot wide property, the plan would require any new construction to have a 115.5-foot facing, and that means nothing smaller than a 7,000 square foot building could be built there. Very restrictive. This makes my property impossible for any development other than a 'big box' -- and virtually unsalable without re-platting (in which case I'd need my second driveway back, which the plan currently wants to close).

Attached is a photo to illustrate the problems in applying the PEDESTRIAN PRIORITY classification to my side the 3200 block of JFK (which IS NOT APPLIED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET).

In the photo, you can see the top of Stromans' roof way down in the background. That's how much the 3200 block puts the HILL in Park Hill, which would be good reason why the other side of the street was NOT marked as Ped Priority.

With the entrance on the north (according to the Jump Start plan -- which is also the only part level enough to accommodate the handicap ramp), to meet this 70% requirement it would be necessary to push the building to the far south edge of my property -- directly in front of where Stromans sign now stands. An approximate 8-foot stilt wall foundation along the south side of the building would be required just to keep the floor level. Put a building on top of that 50-foot deep and 8-foot tall foundation and I think anyone, especially Stromans, would find this design ghastly in appearance. This towering wall would certainly would look unattractive from the street -- and that assumes any future development only wants to make a single story building. Multiply the effect for multiple stories and I think you'd get a lot of complaints about me constructing a Tierney Tower. They might think a four story building was actually five.

As I've often said, I don't think the plan designer ever actually looked at the 3200 block, except maybe on google satellite. At the public meeting where he was talking about an alleyway plan, his comment to me about how wide and gradual the "B" street corners were, which enabled drivers to turn the corner without slowing down, and how they needed to be narrowed and sharpened, was completely inaccurate. A clear indicator that he didn't know what he was talking about.

The public safety hazards from pushing buildings so close to an interstate road were illustrated by a traffic accident two doors down, when a dump truck crashed through the front of the old Bridle Cottage location. If that building were positioned according to this plan, no one might have survived. As I've often said during committee meetings, this is a plan designed for a city street, NOT an interstate highway. Unlike downtown buildings that have a row of parked vehicles as a barrier against vehicular mayhem, this plan affords nothing but shrubs and a sidewalk fast lane through the front window. Any future development will have to shore up the 5 to 15 feet setback like a D-Day beach with concrete barricades.

Pushing businesses closer to the highway also runs counter to the plan to create wide-open sidewalks where people would feel comfortable walking.

As I've said on record before, this plan is a design at the expense of functionality, which puts both stringent limits on future development. With these restrictions, any potential development on my property will likewise be restricted, severely impacting the property's value. I feel the 'nuts and bolts' of the plan still needs a thorough analytical review of cause and effect.
Please consider removing the Pedestrian Priority classification. If I had not served on the review committee, I would have had no idea that some sections of Park Hill have a different plan from the others. I doubt anyone else who is affected does.

This keeps me from endorsing the plan.

I've stated my opinion on problems with the current Jump Start vision.

Now I would like to share a different vision.

Instead of putting so much burden for the redesign at the expense of the property owners -- instead refocus on a plan that will still accomplish the stated goals of increasing pedestrian traffic and slowing vehicular traffic.

Give them something to look at by installing a series of lighted water fountains down the Park Hill highway median. The water and power are already in place.

Invest grant money not in concrete, but instead in a design of functional art. Light it up at night.

Park Hill will become a recreational destination and drivers will slow for the free show. This, more than setting stringent building parameters and setbacks, will create a community atmosphere.

As I've said before, the slogan should be:

"Park Hill, it's your destination."

If I can get a 'thumbs up' from the canon operator of the Death Star,
why not one from the city of North Little Rock?