11-09-04Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5 :00 PM
LITTLE ROCK BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
MINUTES
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in a reconvened session with Mayor
Dailey presiding. The meeting was reconvened from November 1, 2004. City Clerk, Nancy Wood
called the roll with the following Directors Present: Pugh, Hurst, Cazort, Keck, Stewart, Wyrick,
Kumpuris, Graves, Adcock, Vice Mayor Hinton, and Mayor Dailey.
Director Keck gave the invocation, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Mayor Dailey asked the Board to consider modifying the agenda to include the following:
M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 11,860 — To authorize the designation of the Police Department's
Conference Room as the "Assistant Chief Clarence Hunter Memorial Conference Room" and for other
purposes.
Director Cazort made the motion to add Item M -1 to the agenda, Director Adcock seconded the motion,
and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present the item was added to the agenda. Director
Cazort made a motion to alter normal operating rules tonight, and set the hearing on the planning issue
at thirty minutes per each side to present their issues. Director Hurst seconded the motion and by
unanimous voice vote of the Board members present the motion carried.
Mayor Dailey read Item M -1. Mr. Bruce Moore, City Attorney called upon Police Chief Lawrence
Johnson for an overview. Chief Johnson stated that Assistant Chief Clarence Hunter joined the Little
Rock Police Department in 1958, one of just a few black officers who joined the ranks of the department
during the time of racial trouble and turmoil. In the late 1940's only seven black officers existed in the
department and they were listed as Special Officers. They did not have Civil Service status and could
only arrest black people. In 1958 this was still true when Chief Hunter joined the department. He was
not allowed to drive a police car, and was assigned to the 9th Street area where he walked a beat between
Chester and Broadway streets. When he did make an arrest, he had to call a white officer to transport
the prisoner. Pay was low, so he took a second job as a barber instructor at the Little Rock Barber
College. It was reported that Chief Hunter had only one kind of haircut, and that was short. As his
career as a police officer lengthened, it also moved upward. Clarence Hunter became the first black
detective, the first black Sargent, the first black lieutenant, captain and assistant chief. According to his
colleagues he rose through the ranks because of his ease with people and his intelligence. Chief Hunter
kept a worn copy of "How to Win Friends and Influence People ", which he credited with showing him
how to deal with people. He read botany, physics, and biology textbooks as he advanced in his career.
His son, Vince Hunter, said that his dad never used anything as a crutch. He believed no one should
give him anything. Chief Hunter never believed his race could stop him from advancing in life and in
his long distinguished career at Little Rock, as a Little Rock Police Officer, he demonstrated that many
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5 :00 Pni
times. J. F. Cooley stated in an Editorial to the Arkansas Gazette, regarding Clarence Hunters
Promotion to Assistant Chief, "I hope Captain Hunter will not be looked upon as a black assistant chief
because he is an American who just happens to be black. He has struggled, been patient, loyal and
diligent and expressed himself constructively which has proven his intelligence and his ability to lead."
That statement best describes Chief Hunter's career with the Little Rock Police Department. His
dedication to duty, and his caring for fellowmen, and especially his fellow officers has opened the door
for not only black officers, but for all officers to use their God given talent that is placed in all of us.
Chief Hunter has left big shoes to fill when he retired from the department in 1982. Chief Hunter's
letter to Chief Walter Simpson, dated December 18, 1981, stated, "I've see much progress in the twenty -
three years I've spent with the Department. I am very proud to have been an officer of one of the finest
police departments in the country. I wish the department all the success in the world as you move on to
greater achievements. Chief Hunter's retirement did not mean his was quitting his work for the citizens
of this great city. He would go on and run for a House Seat in the Arkansas Legislature and be
successful. On February 23, 2004, Chief Hunter watched the evening news as he always did and headed
off to bed. During his sleep, the Lord called him Home, and he passed from this life. The legacy he left
will forever be remembered. Chief Clarence Hunter will always be part of the Little Rock Police
Department. The official dedication of the conference room will take place at 2:00 PM on November
H. 2004, and everyone is invited to attend.
A motion was made by Director Cazort, seconded by Director Keck to adopt the resolution. By
unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the resolution was adopted.
Director Pugh stated she personally knew Chief Hunter; that she and Chief Hunter's wife worked
together at St. Vincent's Hospital in 1959. He was a good citizen and was happy this was happening for
him tonight because he was a beautiful person.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
1. ORDINANCE NO. 19,232 - LU04 -01 -04 — To amend the Land Use Plan (16,222) in the River
Mountain Planning District from Suburban Office to Mixed and Public Institutional; and for other
purposes. Planning Commission: 9 yes, Ono, 2 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: Land
Use Plan amendments in the River Mountain Planning District from Suburban Office to Mixed and Public
Institutional for future development.
2. ORDINANCE NO. 19233 - Z- 4411 -D - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and establishing
a Planned Commercial District titled Pleasant Ridge Revised Long -Form PCD located south of
Cantrell Road, east of Pleasant Ridge Road, in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending the
Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, and for other purposes. Planning Commission: 7 yes, 2
no, 2 absent. Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes a rezoning of the site from various
zoning classifications to PCD to allow the development of a 300,000 square foot shopping center.
Mayor Dailey announced that he had received a large number of cards, both in favor and opposed to the
issue, and with only thirty minutes being allotted to each side for a public comment standpoint, hoped
that the groups had organized, because obviously not everyone would have time to speak. A lengthy
three and one half hour discussion took place which included the following:
2
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting_
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
Mr. Bruce Moore, City Manager, announced there were issues relating to traffic and planning and
development issues, and asked the Board if they would like the Public Works Director or Planning
Director first. The Board asked for Mr. Guy Lowes, Public Works Director, to give his overview first.
Mr. Lowes stated at the last meeting there were concerns whether the Highway Department would
approve the other signal needed. He said the Highway Department responded that at this point they
would approve the signal as it was proposed last week. Mr. Lowes gave a PowerPoint presentation on
traffic study flow. Mr. Bill Henry, Traffic Engineer for the City, stated the affected roads would be able
to handle the increased traffic. A Traffic Study conducted by Peters and Associates Engineers Inc. and
reviewed by the City, predicted the shopping center would generate an additional 12,000 cars on
weekdays, and 14,000 on weekends. Mr. Henry stated they recommended adding a signal, changing
Southridge Development access to a right turn in, right turn out, so one of the signal indications could be
removed and able to handle the traffic without taking away additional signal time from Cantrell Road.
He said what happens in effect, is the traffic flows out of the shopping center, and the traffic out of
Southridge at the same time, and cycle so the traffic is better handled up and down Cantrell Road. He
said he had spoken with Mark Lyons at the Highway Department and they have taken a look at this
analysis and are in agreement. There would be some initial effect on Sam Peck Road, but he object is to
put the traffic back on the arterial where it is supposed to be. What is happening is that vehicles are
using Pleasant Forrest as a parallel facility to Highway 10, so if the homework is done well, and the
signal timing is right, and traffic is not backed up and its harder for vehicles to cut through the
neighborhoods, then the net effect will be the vehicles will move to Cantrell Road. Mr. Moore asked
Mr. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director to give an overview or answer questions regarding the project.
Mr. Bozynski stated some modifications had been made to the maps because they were not clear, but all
the information remained the same. Mr. Bozynski stated the issue before the Board is the proposal to
develop the Pleasant Ridge Town Center, which is the proposed commercial development located at
Highway 10 and Pleasant Ridge Road. There are three ordinances the Board would be asked to act
upon. The first one is to amend the land use plan in the area, the second ordinance is the reclassification
request to Planned Commercial Development, and the third is to abandon the right -of -way for Summit
Road. Mr. Bozynski showed slides of the proposed land use plan amendment, the rezoning
classification, the proposed abandonment of Summit Road, the revised site plan. He said that a number
of staffs concerns have been addressed with the new site plan. The revisions included 27 acres in both
plans, with a maximum build out of 300,000 square feet. The original site plan the building on the east
side was one tenant, the building a large box. It is now going to be reduced in scale massing two
potential tenants. The building on each end had a drive - through window, and staff felt that was adding
intensity to the development and that has been removed from the building. Significant change was on
one corner which had minimal buffering and landscaping. This are was approximately 25 feet. That
now has been increased to an undisturbed buffer of 80 feet and then additional planting area of 20 feet
and a wall along that corner to add to the screening. Staff felt with the original site plan there were two
different development concepts being proposed. The area on the east side was more the conventional
commercial box development and trying to incorporate this in to a lifestyle center. Staff felt there would
be too many conflicts and that it was not a good plan. There is now a more uniform plan, a true life
style center, there have been pedestrian tables added, significant landscaping, the main drive has been
shifted to the east drive, the landscaping along Highway 10 has been increased, and throughout the site
there have been substantial increases to the landscape, and works better for the surrounding
neighborhood. Regarding the excavation, a recommendation by staff, and approved by the Planning
Commission, and that the applicant has agreed to, is the development have a development of a total of
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
three lots. Two lots of outer parcels and one inner parcel (Lot 1). The grading permit would not be
issued until a building permit is applied for and issued for Lot 1. It is not tied to any particular building
but just to the lot. There is a phasing plan that the applicant has submitted, with two buildings along
Highway 10 are in the first two phases, and the middle building is the third phase, and the other
buildings fall into phases four and five. Director Adcock stated that citizens have expressed to her that
that land has stayed vacant for ten years waiting on development, and they wonder if once that hillside is
gone, if it will sit there for another ten years before development is done. Mr. Bozynski stated there was
nothing staff or planning had recommended to address that issue. Mr. Bozynski stated another condition
staff has attached, and the applicant has agreed to, is that the backs of the building will be designed with
architectural features so that they are not the traditional blank wall that you find in commercial
developments. Director Hurst asked if there is one tenant going in, the developer has permission to take
out the entire hill, even though there may not be a tenant secured for that area. Mr. Bozynski stated he
would assume that; if they have gone through the process to get a building permit, as it is tied to a
building permit, not occupancy, or a signed lease. Director Hurst asked if the city is too far down the
read or too far into the process, to ask that the builder have either a tenant before the ridge is allowed to
be dug out, and her understanding is that if one building goes in, they can take out the entire hill and
wondered if there was any way at this point to tighten it up.
Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney, answered that as an overall development the Board could probably put in
a condition as to when certain things are to be done. He said there are certain plans that would have to
be approved, but stated what he did not know, because he was not familiar with the project, and thought
that Mr. Kaplan, the applicants attorney would probably need to address, is this the type of project that is
susceptible to having one building built with a tenant and not having the rest of the ground put into some
sort of preparation for the next one, or, is it going to be the type of situation that even if you put up one
structure, if you don't go ahead and do the other work, you start making it prohibitively expensive to
have to then work around that. The question for the Board becomes, strictly from a land use standpoint,
is it worthwhile to do that, if it can be done, then the answer is yes, you could put a condition in the
ordinance to do that, and did not think it was too far down the road, as long as putting those types of
conditions into the final draft of the ordinance do not effectively deny the use, if that is what the Board
wishes to do and that's what the landowner wishes to do. The planned develop is only good for three
years. What the Board might want to do, and might want to discuss is the concept that no building
permits will be issued until certain things are in place. That is something that needs to be explored.
Mr. Bozynski stated he believed the applicant was prepared to address the overall development and the
timing of it. Director Hinton asked if there was anything in place to protect the neighborhood if
excavation occurred. Mr. Bozynski stated he would defer that question to that Mr. Joe White the project
engineer for this development. Mr. Carpenter stated one of the questions he was asked is that they
understand that certain aspects of certain roads cannot be opened and would be effectively closed and in
some point in the future they could be opened back up without Board approval, and that there was some
concern about that, and particularly addresses concerns by the Easter Seals. If that is a concern, he
thought it was something that could be put in the ordinance that no roads would be opened without
Board approval, and that would be a condition that could be placed in the ordinance pretty easily. Mr.
Joe White, stated they have two sites available to take the material. Both of the sites are on state
highways, one is located down Highway 10 to the west, and the other is just across the river bridge on
Crystal Hill Road, so protecting the city streets. They have a plan to only haul on state highways and
going across the river should work well. It would be a right turn out of the site, east on Highway 10, to
0
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
I -430 across the river bridge, coming back up the hill with an empty truck. He said they have a
commitment from another developer to do that. Director Kumpuris stated a question that keeps
reappearing in his correspondence is that there is a land use plan and this isn't part of the land use plan,
and asked Mr. Bozynski to address that issue. Mr. Bozynski showed a slide of the proposed land use
plan amendment. It is from suburban office to mixed and public and institutional. The public and
institution is at the corner of where Woodland Heights turns to the north. He said this is the area where
staff recommended, and the Planning Commission voted to support, a plan change (Vote was 9 yes, 0
no) to go from suburban office to mixed. He said staff feels with the mix designation, a Planned
Development is required. Mr. Guy Lowes was asked if the land use and land alteration plan would be
altered for this development. Mr. Lowes stated this development is a little higher, but the land alteration
allows it when you stair -step it and do landscaping in between. He said this falls within that. He said it
is safe and the landscaping would take care of the appearance. Director Kumpuris stated what he is
getting in correspondence is that the City is violating our own regulations, and asked Mr. Lowes if that
were true. Mr. Lowes stated the Planning Commission as the authority to modify and approve plans.
Mr. Bozynski stated that staff is recommending approval for the land use plan amendment, for the
reclassification to the PCD, and the abandonment of Summit Road. Director Keck asked if the
abandonment on Summit required the approval or acceptance of all the property owners and there was
some question as far as control of all the property, and asked if it was all under Mr. Schickel's control,
or options . Mr. Bozynski answered that it was done through ownership or offers and acceptance. Mr.
Phil Kaplan, representing the developer, Mr. Lou Schickel, stated that during the initial presentation, the
Board would hear from Everett Hatcher, the project architect, Joe White, the project engineer, Ernie
Peters, the project traffic engineer, Eddie Martin, from Colson Oil, Joe O'Brien, a member of the
Pleasant Valley POA Board of Directors, Dr. Dennis Burrow from Walton Heights, Richard Stephens,
representing Christ the King Church, Johnny Burnett, representing Easter Seals, is present, and has
authorized him to say they are not opposed to the development, but that he did not wish to speak, and
Jeff Stinson, Longlea Addition. Mr. Kaplan asked those present in support of the development to stand
or raise their hand. Mr. Kaplan handed the Mayor a packet of petitions for distribution to the Board. He
explained this project is a result of a lengthy interaction among staff, neighbors, and the developer which
resulted in a PCD, a planned commercial development, which is unique in the city and in the state; a
lifestyle town center that embodies the best that urban planners and architects have devised to harmonize
institutional, office, shopping and residential areas. Mr. Kaplan said the new centers which if approved,
they would expect to open in August 2006, and would being in millions of dollars in sales tax revenue,
dollars that would not be going to Memphis, Dallas or St. Louis. He stated it would generate jobs, real -
estate taxes, and a large percent going to the Little Rock School District. He stated Parisian has signed a
letter of intent contingent on zoning approval for Pleasant Ridge, making it the first Saks store in the
state. He stated that not a shovel of dirt would be turned until a building permit is issued. There is no
danger that the hillside would be removed and nothing built. It will be built all at one time. He said
they would not apply for a building permit except for all of Lot 1. Mr. Kaplan addressed the traffic issue
saying shopping center hours would be different than peak hours and showed some photos of Cantrell
Road at 10 am in the morning, revealing no traffic congestion. The mall would be open at 5 pm in the
afternoon but the peak shopping hours are from 6:30 to 8:30 pm, long after the tremendous crunch from
down town is at that location. Mr. Kaplan stated if the City has a plan to alleviate traffic, they would
contribute to the city's plan and fund a plan for Pleasant Forest Drive to ameliorate the conditions they
have complained about for several years. Mr. Kaplan Stated the existing cut is now 1200 feet long, and
what it would end up being is a terraced slope, which will be about a third of the present cut with a
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
maximum height of 55 feet and much lower than in most areas. All of the excavation would be fully
compliant with City and state requirements. There will be onsite water retention; all that will need to be
done in regard to excavation will be done in strict compliance with the law. He stated Mr. Schickel's
has not requested any special tax considerations; this will not be a TIF project, and not take taxes out of
the school district or any other entity. The project architect, Everett Hatcher, showed the Board some
photographs of some of the lifestyle projects they have done throughout the southeast pointing out
features that would be similar to this proposed project. Ernie Peters addressed the traffic situation
saying they had done an extensive traffic study to this project, was done initially during the summer, and
then updated on the backside on some of the residential areas around Easter Seals, the back side of
Christ the King Church, in August after school resumed. The City then did independent counts, and
analysis in the middle of September. The city study was found in complete concurrence with their
findings that this center can be developed and will generate traffic volumes in the neighborhood of
12,000 trips per day. He estimated that an additional 350 vehicles would occur on Sierra Forest between
Pleasant Forrest and Fairview, 475 additional vehicles on the most heavily traveled section of Pleasant
Forest, which currently has 5200 vehicles per day. Mr. Joe White was asked how many loads of dirt he
perceived would be taken out of that site, and what hours they would haul the dirt out. He responded it
was about 500,000 yards, which would be about 20 yards per truck, which would be 25,000 truck loads.
He stated they would be restricted to Cantrell Road. He stated he would image they would start after
the peak traffic and start after the am peaks and stop before the pm peaks, so the hours might be
something like 8:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Mr. White was asked what the developer would do about the
trucks on the city streets. Mr. White replied that they would be using state highway, but would say on
recent projects, where streets have failed due to contractor's hauling material in and out of jobs, the city
has required those contractors or owner to go back and repair the streets. He said what they would
commit to is if any damage is done, and if done would image it would be to the street right in front of
their site and they would commit to doing any repair if they see any damage take place there. Mr. White
was asked what type of time frame he foresaw the trucks going and coming. He answered it would
estimate it would take four to six months. Mr. Kaplan asked Mike Coulson, Joe O'Brien, Pleasant
Valley Property Owners Association, Dennis Burrow, Walton Heights, Richard Stephens, Christ the
King, and Jeff Stinson, Longlea Addition, to stand to indicate that in terms of their own developments,
are not opposed to this development. Those speaking in opposition were: Mr. Craig Williams, president
of the Pleasant Forest Property Owners Association, who said it is hard not to like the development, but
the surrounding areas needed to be considered. He said this is not in a area that needs revitalizing, its
not in a location that is likely to encourage pedestrians to walk to the center, its development of high -end
shops that not everyone could afford, and there fore could not rely on short commuters to sustain it.
That traffic will impact nearby neighborhoods. It is not on land that was designated for the purpose now
being considered. When there are changes of land use and zoning issues like the ones involved in this
development it creates uncertainty for those who own homes and businesses. He said the size is too big
for the neighborhood. There will be extreme destruction of landscape involved with this project. He
said the development would change their neighborhood. Mr. Williams said they also have a petition that
has about a thousand signatures that they wanted to turn in, and asked those that were present who were
opposed to the size of the development to stand and be recognized. They presented it to the Mayor.
Gert Clark, stated this is the Natural State, that she and her husband came back to live here because it
was the natural state, the City of Trees, and asked where are the values? She asked is progress at all
costs the most important thing as far as a mall goes. Nobody ever moves to a City because it has a great
mall. They move to a city because it has a great community and a great heart. They don't destroy the
rel
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
land they claim to love in the sight of progress. She said a mall may be needed, but this was not the site.
The area already has problems with too much traffic and too much crime. Kate Althoff, stated she
came before the Board in 1999 and in 2000 representing a grass roots effort called Citizens for the Land
Alteration Ordinances, and the purpose of the organizational to promote the passage of the new land
alteration ordinance and landscape ordinances and knew many remembered the process that took place.
The task force was appointed, made recommendations, members of the development industry met with
members of the task force, and with the help of a mediator, they offered to the city, new ordinances that
were adopted. She asked the Board to honor the ordinances that were passed and the great amount of
volunteer work that went into it, and asked the Board not to grant extreme variances from those laws.
Sandy Bowen, stated she lived in a neighborhood directly across the street from this proposed
development. Her home is less than 200 feet from the development, and it is too large for the
neighborhood. This is not compatible with or harmonious with the surrounding area and character of the
neighborhood. Taking down the hill will subject her neighborhood to the lights, the noise from Cantrell
as well as the lights from the development. Removal of this hill will change the character of their
neighborhood significantly from the quiet single - family homes that currently exist. She stated the
development is just too big and to close to their neighborhood, and urged the Board to save the hill. Jan
Baker, President of the Walton Heights Homeowners Association, stated there are 410 households in the
Walton Heights /Candlewood Neighborhoods that were polled on October 15th to determine whether the
neighborhood was supportive or opposed to this development. The poll showed that 85% of the
neighborhood opposed the proposed development. The neighborhood association opposed the
development and had sent a letter to the Board stating those reasons. Ms. Baker stated the main concern
is the traffic problem on Cantrell Road. Other concerns are the number of traffic accidents that residents
of the neighborhood have been in involved with already. It is a dangerous situation now, and will only
become more perilous with the added traffic, and the truck loads of hauling dirt. She asked what effect
the mall would have on the already stressed treatment plant. They had concern about moving the 300 to
400 trees from the site during excavation. They fear that the land will be stripped, and nothing built,
when upscale tenants won't commit to the upscale lifestyle center. She said in their opinion this did not
meet the criteria for smart growth. Nathan Culp, President of the Westbury Neighborhood Association,
stated they were opposed to the development because of the increased traffic it would generate, and
because it necessitates several changes to variances from the city ordinances. He said they have
reviewed the traffic studies, and the volume change is an issue. Their neighborhood has only one
entrance from Highway 10 and it's very difficult to turn left out of their neighborhood and this would
continue to deteriorate. The natural course for an alternate route would be to turn onto Sam Peck then
on to Pleasant Forest to go into town, and will further aggravate the current problems in that area. He
stated their opposition was decided in open meetings where all residents were invited. Sixty -nine out of
seventy -one homes signed the petition in opposition to this development. Charles Pruitt, President of
the Piedmont Neighborhood Association, said his neighborhood was extremely against this proposal,
feeling a new shopping center was a good idea, but this was trying to shoehorn a development on to this
site that was way too big for the land that encompasses this site. He said the vast majority of water is
now going to drain of the front side, and right now there is an enormous amount of water coming of the
site that runs into the storm drains, down the northern side of Highway 10 under Cantrell Road at
Independent Air, into Piedmont Lake. He said he filed an EPA claim against Langston Construction,
who he understood would be doing this excavation as well. He said the lake is very different than it was
in 1998 because of the excavation already done; there are no sedimentation ponds, which were required
in 1998. Jim Link, member of the Board of Directors of the Pleasant Valley Property Owners
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
Association. He said if economics and taxes are the major factor there needs to be as study to prove this,
the assumptions the directors used are unknown, and are unsubstantiated numbers. He stated there
needs to be an economic profession to provide an economic analysis to determine what the true benefits
to the city would be if this project is approved. Only then can the city weigh the potential benefits
against he considerable risk and disadvantages. He said two weeks ago there was a tragedy on Pleasant
Valley Drive, that "an out of the neighborhood person" hit a person crossing Pleasant Valley Road, and
is still in coma, that was caused by outside traffic. They do not need cut through traffic. Julie Hancock,
stated she hoped the Board would see the different effects this would have on the different
neighborhoods surrounding the area. She said this development is too big, it is not harmonious, it's not
compatible with the neighborhood, it takes down the hill, and it doesn't utilize the natural resources or
preserve the natural topography and asked the Board to consider their requests not to approve. She
handed out a packet of information to the Board.
The Board took a short break. Mayor Dailey called the meeting back to order. Mayor Dailey stated two
individuals had asked to be recognized, that they had turned in cards, and that their issues were different
to which have been spoken. He said what he would do arbitrarily as the Chair, is allow 1 minute for
each person wishing to speak and would add two minutes on to the other side as well. A representative
of the Jewish Church (speaker did not identify himself by name) said they felt they must oppose the
proposed development because of the impositions being placed upon them at this time as to how they
can use their property, and the danger to the children who are on the property at this time. The increased
traffic would create a more dangerous situation for the children. Mr. Richard Downing, representing
Walter Smiley, Smiley Technologies, stated this business is immediately adjacent to the property, said
this development creates a substantial security risk for the business that is operated there. He said they
believed there were questions on the study and the numbers presented and offered, with the
neighborhoods, that they have contacted a firm in Kansas City Missouri that is imminently qualified to
do traffic studies and look at this report and determine whether the report is accurate, the methodology
correct. He said make that offer to the city right now. He felt it incumbent on the city to make sure that
traffic study is right. He asked if we are not sending 500,000 cubic yards of our soul to North Little
Rock, for taxes. Mr. Carpenter stated he did not know if the city was interested in the offer Mr.
Downing made, regarding the study, but that there would need to be a time frame on that, and wondered
how quickly that could be done if the Board were interested in the study. Mr. Downing said he felt it
could be done before the next Board meeting. Mr. Phil Kaplan asked Mr. Joe White to address some of
the issues that had been raised by the opponents. Mr. White stated that what the ordinance states is that
at staff level the developer can take a 30 foot cut. Anything greater than 30 feet has to go to the
Planning Commission. The ordinance does not refer to going thirty foot vertically as a variance. This
site is currently at 53 feet on the cut. The cuts that were made in years past approached a hundred feet.
The new ordinance allows the developer to cut the slopes, replant with trees and terraces, recolor the
slopes so that several years down the road there is something that looks nice, not a eyesore for the next
twenty or thirty years. He said they were involved in the original excavation at Pleasant Ridge and the
contractor that was involved would not be the contractor on this job. Mr. White stated that McGeorge
Contracting, would be the contractor. The original contractor was fined for lack of paper work, nothing
more than that. Mr. Schickel was not fined, it was the contractor's responsibility and he did not follow
through. Mr. White said Mr. Schickel did hire a consultant when all that was going on who did a study
of Piedmont Lake, and what they learned was there was no impact from the original Pleasant Ridge cut.
They took samples from the bottom of the lake and the impact occurred back in the eighties when
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
Highway 10 was widened by the State. He confirmed to acquiring a building permit for the entire Lot 1
prior to any excavation work taking place. He sated the August plan versus the plan tonight, is that staff
was not comfortable with the size, and working closely with staff it was not necessarily the size. As it
was the way the plan was developed and the fact that the developer did not take care of the Cedar
Branch Neighborhood to the west, that plan had no buffering. The next plan was for 30 feet and the next
plan went to 80 feet for buffering. That is an undisturbed area of 50 to 60 foot of trees that will not be
touched. There is an additional 20 feet they will replant, so there is actually 100 foot of buffer as well as
the 8 foot brick wall that will screen the residential area from the back of the development. Director
Wyrick asked how this development compared with Park Plaza in terms of square footage, and size of
the area, University Mall, and some of the other similar locations in the city. Mr. White stated they are
developing about half the density of these developments that took place years ago, for instance Park
Plaza is on roughly 22 acres but is twice the square footage as this development. Director Graves asked
about the lighting and parking. Mr. White stated they wanted to make it so that it fits within the
neighborhood but also provide safe lighting for pedestrians in the evening. Mr. Peters, architect for the
Pleasant Ridge Development, stated they would have street lamps that would be pedestrian in scale, and
its important that the lighting level lends itself to security, and no light spill on the adjacent
neighborhood. He stated that they have had many conversations with staff regarding parking on the
project, and stated he thought staff was in agreement with the amount of parking shown on the site plan.
He stated it has been their experience as these lifestyle centers have developed, and are a new
phenomenon in the retail industry is that the parking standards tend to be a lot less than the old shopping
centers where there are acres and acres of empty parking lot in front of the stores. They are trying to
balance the amount of parking so it does not create these big seas of parking. Mr. Peters showed slides
of a similar project in Atlanta that was one comparable to this development and stated it had received an
award for the Urban Land Institute as being a wise commercial development, land values had increased
around the project, the community around the project uses it as a true town center. He thought this an
opportunity for the City of Little Rock to duplicate this success. Mr. Joe O'Brien with the Pleasant
Valley Home Owners Association said he brought this development to the attention of the Pleasant
Valley Home Owners Association when he learned about it earlier this year. He said initially it was nine
to nothing against the development, but since they have learned about it, and said he had changed his
opinion totally. He stated that last night they had a re -vote; it was five to four to withdraw opposition,
for the reason stated, and was here to represent the majority of the property owners in the Pleasant
Valley Board as far as the vote. Mr. Kaplan said the fact is, there will be development on that back
acreage, and if office or multi - family goes in there, it will be a much denser use than this lifestyle town
center will be, there will be much more parking, much more traffic generated by either an office site or a
multi - family site, and there will be trees cut. There have been developments on the Hwy 10 scenic
corridor that have been built that have caused trees to be cut down, such as the Cingular Call Center that
have generated thousand of jobs and thousands of dollars for the city. Even residential areas that have
been developed have cut down trees, and the fact is that the city is growing at a proper pace. This is an
infill project, and not one that is a sprawl project. The staff never had reservations about the parking
spaces, and with regard to the offer of a traffic study, they have a first class professional in Mr. Peters,
who has been associated with traffic in this city for twenty -five years, that he knew about, and there
wasn't a finer professional. He stated this is a smart growth development and one that deserves the
Boards approval and not one that that is going to delay. This developer needs the Boards attention to
this project now, and approval of the project now. Director Graves asked Mr. Kaplan what the hours
were for trash trucks to access this property. Mr. Kaplan stated there will be gates that will block the
9
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
entrance way to the passages that the trash trucks and delivery trucks will have to access these units. He
stated that they can work out with staff the appropriate hours, and would be during normal business
hours, and would make that commitment. He stated the trash compactor will be screened. Director
Hurst asked Mr. Bozynski how the city would protect itself from erosion. Mr. Bozynski answered that
there are certain standards they have to do when they do the excavation, erosion controls, that he did not
know the specifics, but that would be required that they have those in place. Mr. Bozynski added that
service hours right now are 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Mr. Guy Lowes, Public Works Director, stated that the
ordinance requires the soil, runoff, etc. be controlled at a certain level and they would make sure the
developer adheres to the ordinance. He stated the developer has to submit plans that comply with the
ordinance, and staff follows ups to make sure they are in place and maintained. Mr. Lowes stated that
beyond the ordinance of the city, there are state statues that come into play. Director Hurst stated there
have been promises made tonight, that she did not think were part of the ordinance, and asked Mr.
Carpenter in particular about the damage done to streets. Mr. Carpenter stated that it would have to be
shown that the damage was actually done by that truck because of the high volume on Hwy 10. Director
Hurst asked if there was any way for the city to enforce or monitor that. Mr. Carpenter stated he thought
it would depend on what the nature of the damage is. If its wear and tear because it's a heavy truck
upon the highway, did not know how it would be distinguished what happened from taking fill off this
site, to what happens when a business has a truck deliver goods on Cantrell, or anything else that
happens on that street. If it is something like knocking down signs or there is some sort of directly
identifiable damage, it could be monitored and enforced, but in terms of it being apart of the ordinance,
that really does not have anything to do with the land use aspect. Director Hurst asked Mr. White if he
would like to address this. Mr. White responded that it would be hard to distinguish on I -430 going
down the hill, but certainly if it can be determined that a certain area where their trucks are turning out,
that starts to rut, and thought that is where damage would occur, and said that it's fairly easy to go out
and see if it's a continuous movement of trucks over an area, that damage occurs and if it did occur they
would repair it. Director Hurst stated the second promise that was made, was not requesting a building
permit until they are ready to build the entire phase one, or entire lot one, and if she understood
correctly, this was not a part of the ordinance. Mr. Bozynski stated that was correct, the condition that
was approved by the Planning Commission, ties it into a building on the building permit for structure on
lot one. Director Hurst stated, then there is no way for the city to enforce that because its not part of the
ordinance. Mr. Bozynski stated the application could be amended to make that a part of the condition of
this ordinance. Director Hurst asked the developer if they would be comfortable with that. Mr. White
answered that they would, based on a building permit on Lot 1. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Kaplan
what kind of agreement the developer had with Parisian, and what percentage of tenants would have to
be pre - leased before dirt is turned. Mr. Kaplan stated they have a letter of intent to enter into a lease
upon approval of the rezoning. Mr. Kaplan stated he could not answer that question, but the architect
may be able to. Mr. Hatcher, the project architect stated that normally 75 % -80% of the center would be
pre - leased before you would start. Director Adcock asked if waste water had been contacted. Mr.
Bozynski, stated they are a part of the review, and the comment they got was that the sewer main
extension required with the easement if service is required for the project, that got no comment about
future impacts on the existing system. He stated that when they have the inter - departmental review that
Little Rock Waste Water does sit on that review and did not offer any concerns at that time. Director
Graves asked for assurance regarding Piedmont Lake. Mr. Kaplan stated that there have been ongoing
discussions with the contractor, McGeorge, who will do the excavating, that all ordinances, all EPA
regulations, and any city regulations will be followed. There are already plans for settlement ponds on
10
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
November 9, 2004
5:00 PM
the property to make sure runoff will not get into streams and ponds. Director Stewart made a motion,
that the road adjacent to Easter Seals could not be reopened without coming to the Board. Mr. Kaplan
stated that was not a problem, they would not open the road without coming to the Board, that its part of
what he PCD requires, and is in the PCD, and could not do it, unilaterally, without coming back to the
Board. Mr. Kaplan stated he would make the commitment that the road would not be opened
unilaterally. Mayor Daily asked Mr. Carpenter how that intent could be made that is clearly legally
binding. Mr. Carpenter stated you would make it a condition of the PCD and the developer agrees to it.
Mayor Dailey asked if there needed to be an amendment to that effect. Mr. Carpenter recommended
making a motion to amend to include that. Director Hurst seconded the motion made by Director
Stewart, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two - thirds in number, the
amendment was made. Director Hurst made a motion to make an amendment that requires the
developer be issued a building permit only when they are prepared to build all of Lot 1. Director
Kumpuris seconded the motion and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two -
thirds in number, the amendment was made. Item 1, Item 2 (as amended) and 3 were read the first time.
Director Keck, seconded by Director Cazort, made the motion to suspend the rules and place the
ordinances on second reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, being two -
thirds in number, the rules were suspended and ordinances (Item 1, Items 2 (as amended) and 3 were
read the second time. Director Keck, seconded by Director Adcock, made the motion to suspend the
rules and place the ordinances on third and final reading. By unanimous voice vote of the Board
members present, being two - thirds in number, the rules were suspended to provide for the third reading
and ordinances (Item 1, Items 2 (as amended) and 3 were read the third time. A roll call vote was taken
and recorded as follows: Director Cazort stated he was mindful of the potential growth and jobs this
offers, but was also mindful that every benefit has a cost, and while he perceived the potential of this
shopping center to be enormous, he perceived the cost to be greater and stated he would not be
supporting the development. A roll call vote was taken on Item 1 and recorded as follows: Directors:
Pugh, no, Hurst, yes, Cazort, no, Keck no, Stewart, yes, Wyrick, yes, Kumpuris, yes, Graves, yes,
Adcock no, Vice Mayor Hinton yes, Mayor Dailey yes. Item 1 was passed by a vote of 7 yes, 4 no. A
roll call vote was taken on Item 2 and recorded as follows: Directors: Pugh, no, Hurst, yes, Cazort, no,
Keck no, Stewart, yes, Wyrick, yes, Kumpuris, yes, Graves, yes, Adcock no, Vice Mayor Hinton yes,
Mayor Dailey yes. Item 2 was passed by a vote of 7 yes, 4 no. The roll was called on Item 3 and
recorded as follows: Directors: Pugh, no, Hurst, yes, Cazort, no, Keck no, Stewart, yes, Wyrick, yes,
Kumpuris, yes, Graves, yes, Adcock no, Vice Mayor Hinton yes, Mayor Dailey yes. Item 3 was passed
by a vote of 7 yes, 4 no. All three ordinances (Items 1, 2, and 3) were passed.
The following is a list of speaker cards turned in that were opposed to Item 1 & 2, and 3:
Jim Limbird, Nick Limbird, Marion Kahn, Tamera J. Viner, Leon Johnson,
Bentzion Pape, Shulanita Muller, David Viner, Lydia Antonetz, John Antonetz, James A. Ryan, Mark
Mannon, Karen Campbell, Mary Wildgen, Marie Emmons, Ann Parat, Ken Gould, Brender Bldesoe,
Berry Brenner, Rochie Pape, Allen Ostendorff, Howrd Ostendorff, Ellen Ma, Michael Parat, Elaine
Parfitt, Renee Greengart, John Hollemann, Herb Dickson, Estie Clement, Sylvia Orton, Gail Shotirstein,
Roberta Mannon, Charlotte Peebles, Dick Downing, Ruth Bell, Jamie Badeaux, Ray Rodgers, Rabbi
Ciment, Leon Smith, Daniel Warren, Cloie Morgan, Harry Ehriclob, , IV, Linda Smith, Celia Martin,
Josie BlancoMaria Gomez, Atara Frankel, Dov Frankel, Hyatt Lee, Kate Althoff, Gert Clark, Craig
Williams, Nathan Culp, Jan Baker, Sandy Bowen, Charles Pruitt, Jim Lake, Julie Harlock Judy
Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting
!November 9, 2004
5 :00 PM
Beaumont, Dan Hancock, Judith, Lansky, Becky Farrow, Bill Scott, Beth Hennessey, Eliezer Muller,
Suzanne McLarty, Michael Trini, Martha Fagan, Janice Rickett, David Mayo, Patricia Lalshley, Andrea
Lalshley, Lannece Mayo, Kari Caradine, Tommy Watkins, Marti Morrison, Brett Caradine, Steve
Qualls, Lou Tobian, Joe Roberto, James Ayers, Tower Hemmel, Anna Gammill, Lois Roberts, Marvin
Rubenstein, Ginger Rush, Diane Robbins, Walter Smiley, William Williams, Charlotte Smith, Dan
Jackson, Barbara Webb, Selma Metzger, Polly Martin, Marge Jernigan, Carol Minor, Judy Madlem
The following is a list of speaker cards turned in that was in favor of Items 1, 2, and 3:
Kim Magee, Sherrie Turner, Evalina Johnson, Joyce Bunting, Geraldine Higgins, Virgina Morales,
Catherine Pendergraft, Clarence White, Shawnrita Swain, Frances Boykin, Gene Eberle, Jolie
Rainwater, Strephen Young, Jr. Jody Hardin, Dawne Fox, Maria Maratinez, Barbara Jean Thurber,
Windy Alexander, Maria Ventura, Trinette McCurren, Angela Murphy,
Judy Ritchy, Cathy Pursell, Martha Chisenhall, Dale Ronnel, Bill Austion, Dennis Burrow, Marvin
Eason, Tom Dober, E. J. Fox, Chris Tanner, Joey Fox, Derrick Sugg, Jan Wright, Joe O'Brien, Joe
Janton, Robert Derbin, Ben McMinn, Milke Coulson, Phil Kaplan, Billy Ginocchio, Billie Isaacs,
Hardin james, Debbie McKinzie, Lenore Schickel, Mary Chaney, Ralph Finney, Angie Janton, John
Maagee, Robert Winter, James, Cline, Betty Cline, Christina Stephens, Martha Dearborne, Richard
Stephens, Ron Zimmous, Bridget Huntington, William Freeborn, Lee Ronnel, Selena Ellis, Brook
Rogers, Fred Dearborn, Mather Chaney, Samatha Chaney, David Bauer, Paula Harrison, Michelle Jacks,
John Chaney, Josh Hardin, Jeff Stinson, Donnie Dewitt, Melissa Henshaw, Michael McLonnell, Dana
Bauer, Nancy Runnells, Sue Winter, Megan Montgomery, Mike Montgomery, Harold Corser, Cathy
McGlothin, Alyssa Loyd, Dwayne Page, Mike Fitzpatrick, Jill Fitzpatrick, Mike Schimming, Sandra
Baxter, Clark McGlothin, Alice Eason, Nina Schickel, Kim Gillum, Chuck Nestrud, Eddie Martin, Scott
Swander, Penny Fox, Stuart Barker,
3. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE - G -23 -340 - To abandon a Public Right of Way located
adjacent to Plots B, C, D, E, I, J, K and L of the Woodland Heights Subdivision; and for other purposes.
Synopsis: The applicant proposes the abandonment of Summit Road from Woodland Heights Road to Fairview Road
in conjunction with the Pleasant Ridge Long -form PCD (Z- 4411 -D).
Mayor Dailey opened the public hearing. There were no comments. Mayor Dailey closed the public hearing.
A motion was made by Director Cazort to adjourn, Director Hurst seconded the motion and by
unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the meeting was adjourned at 9:45 PM.
ATTEST:
Nanc Wood, ity Clerk
12
APPROVE:
— 44414 l "
Jim ailey, Mayor