pc_01 27 1987LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION
PLANNING HEARING
MINUTE RECORD
JANUARY 27, 1987
1 : 00 P. M.
I.Roll Call and Finding of a Quorum
A quorum was present being 8 in number.
SUMMARY OF PLANNING ITEMS
JANUARY 27, 1987
1.Excavation Ordinance
2.65th Street West District Plan
3.Highway 10 Plan Amendment
4.Master Street Plan Amendment
January 27, 1987
PLANNING HEARING
Item_No. 1_ �_ Land_ Alteration _Regulations,_Draft #6
NAME: City of Little Rock
LC OA DN :
Planning Jurisdiction of
the City of Little Rock
REQi1EST: Adoption of Draft #6 of the
proposed Land Alteration
Regulations
STAFF-REPORT:
The proposed land alteration regulations (commonly known as
the excavation ordinance) have been prepared by City
engineering and planning staff members to prevent excessive
grading, clearing and filling which causes erosion,
sedimentation, flooding, and slope instability problems and
reduces the quality of life in Little Rock by destroying
natural vegetation. Examples of problem areas may be seen
on Rodney Parham Road at Reservoir Road, on Cantrell Road
near Rebsamen Park Road, and on Highway 10 at Pleasant Ridge
Road. The proposed regulations would control clearing and
grading of sites for marketing purposes, which has been a
major problem, and would provide the Planning Commission and
Board of Directors with better information with which to
evaluate development applications that are brought before
them.
The proposed land alteration regulations have been
formulated through an extensive public involvement process
including three separate mailings of different drafts to
over 100 persons and groups in the community, meetings with
contractor and neighborhood organizations, discussion at two
Planning Commission retreats, and review by the Plans
Committee of the Planning Commission.
The requirements of the ordinance, which are very minor in
nature, will not hamper development in Little Rock. The
primary effects are that developers and contractors will
merely be required to consider protective matters in advance
and to take simple steps toward controlling erosion and
preserving natural vegetation. In virtually all cases, it
is anticipated that clearing, grading, and construction will
still be able to proceed while giving attention to erosion
control measures and, where appropriate, terracing cut areas
and retaining certain areas of natural vegetation.
Major provisions of the proposed regulations are:
* Grading permits are required for the following
activities in areas zoned or intended for commercial,
industrial, office, multi - family or institutional
use:
- Cut or fill greater than 25 feet.
- Grading, filling, cutting, quarrying, construction
or similar activities involving more than 5 acres.
- Clearing or cutting more than 25 large trees in
an area greater than 2 acres in size.
* A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan is required with
Planning Commission applications if any of the above
activities are involved.
STAFF_ RE MP4ENDATT ONi
Staff recommends approval of Draft #6
PLANS COMMITTEE REVIEW (1- 20 -87)
Staff showed slides and outlined revisions that had been
made in Draft #6 to deal with comments made at the Planning
Commission retreat and at the Plans Committee meeting in
November, 1986. Comments received from the City Engineer
and AP &L were also presented. The Chairman of the City
Beautification Commission, Bob Callans, presented a letter
containing suggested amendments to the regulations. Other
persons present at the meeting included representatives of
ARKLA Gas, the League of Women Voters, NOBLE, and the two
newspapers. After discussion, Jerilyn Nicholson made a
motion, seconded by Dorothy Arnett, to recommend approval of
Draft #6 with the following amendments:
1. Elimination of exceptions for any development in the
floodplain regardless of the size of the development.
2. Clarification of language to indicate that tree
trimming by utilities would be included as part of a
one -time permit.
3. Addition of provisions to allow landscape architects
to prepare Sketch Grading and Drainage Plans.
4. Clarification of the one -time approval language to
indicate that such an approval would be permanent in
nature as long as the same procedures were followed.
5. On page 3, revision of Section B to have it apply to
sites of more than two acres instead of more than five
acres. Also, on page 5, Section C, revision of the
exemption to have it apply to areas of two acres or
less instead of five acres or less.
6. On page 12, section 5A.13, line 16, insertion of
wording to require maintenance of grass and trees
planted to restore land that has been illegally
altered.
The motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes (Sipes, Arnett, and
Nicholson), 0 noes, and 1 absent (Jones).
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 27 -87)
Staff presented Draft #6 of the proposed Excavation
Ordinance and outlined various amendments recommended by the
Plans Committee and staff. David Jones indicated that he
did not think that a landscape architect was qualified to
prepare large scale grading and drainage plans.
Bob Callans, Chairman of the City Beautiful Commission,
indicated that landscape architects were qualified.
Walter Riddick asked what had happened with the 1000 cubic
yard standard. Gary Greeson explained that it had been
eliminated because it would involve too many small projects.
Mike Batie stated that a standard of 3000 cubic yards would
be okay, but there would still be a problem of determining
the amount after the fact.
The hearing was officially opened and Kathleen Oleson,
7 Chelsea Road, noted that she worked with the Newcomers
Club and that newcomers are attracted by the beauty of the
area. She said that if we were not careful, Little Rock
would not remain natural. Nancy Clark appeared on behalf of
the Arkansas Conservation Coalition, noting that quality of
life should be considered and that high tech industries pick
locations based on high quality of life. Mariam Searcy read
a letter requesting that the ordinance be made stronger.
Linda Miller, First Vice President of the League of Women
Voters, filed and read a statement supporting an excavation
ordinance and requesting that the proposed draft be made
more strict in a number of ways. Jim Pfeifer, submitted a
petition from a group of 12 engineers and architects
supporting draft #5 of the proposed ordinance. He noted
that several of the persons signing the petition were
concerned that the ordinance was not stronger.
Andrea Jackson, 511 E. 8th, said the ordinance was not
strong enough.
Marc Johnson, Vice President of the Walton Heights -
Candlewood Homeowners Association, indicated support for the
excavation ordinance with modifications to make it more
restrictive. He reviewed in detail various suggested
amendments which were contained in a letter to the
Commission. In answer to a question as to why the bond
provision had been deleted, Gary Greeson explained that it
was taken out because the fine was considered to be adequate
and some people would have difficulty obtaining bonds.
David Jones asked whether or not the excavation provisions
would apply out in the county beyond the City limits.
Gary Greeson indicated that the provisions would not apply
unless there was an application to the Planning Commission.
Donald Snow, President of the Walton Heights- Candlewood
Homeowners Association noted that even with the staff
recommended changes to draft #6, unsightly cuts could still
occur. He suggested stronger enforcement provisions and
other items contained in Marc Johnson's letter.
Suzanne Hamilton, a West Little Rock resident, urged
adoption of the ordinance with strengthening to deal with
monitoring and enforcement. She asked that the Commission's
vote be delayed to allow strengthening of the ordinance as
suggested by the League of Women Voters. John Miller, an
architect, expressed a need for more guidelines for
preparation of plans. He said that the proposals would not
be restrictive to a project. He said that a cubic yards
standard was not needed, but that a percent of area
disturbed was. He also expressed concern about
enforcement, stating that the fines would not be enough.
David Werling, President of NOBLE, appeared in favor of the
ordinance, but questioned whether the provisions were
adequate to achieve the purposes. He noted that 15 foot
cuts would be dangerous to children and suggested a clearing
standard of 10% for requirement of a grading plan. He
reviewed an example of an area in West Little Rock and
reviewed a drawing of soil loss on a building site, noting
the cumulative effects. In answer to questions from
David Jones, he commented on problems with a smaller site,
his letter to the newspaper, and the Planning Commission not
trying to resolve matters by making political concessions.
In answer to a question from William Ketcher, he noted that
a core group of 12 people in NOBLE had worked on the
Excavation Ordinance.
Bob Callans, Chairman of the City Beautiful Commission
passed out a statement and examples of different slopes.
He noted that most of their concerns had been addressed by
staff. He read a memo which was submitted to the
Commission. Merlin Seamon, representing the Arkansas
Chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects,
supported the ordinance with the changes recommended by
staff. He also asked that it be strengthened. He noted
that he supported the recommendations of the City Beautiful
Commission. In answer to a question from David Jones as to
whether or not the ordinance would increase the volume of
work for landscape architects, he said that it would not
make a significant difference.
The Commission then proceeded to discuss the ordinance.
Jerilyn Nicholson reviewed the major differences brought up
by persons at the hearing. In discussion of the review time
for staff, Mike Batie indicated that he did not have a
strong opinion one way or the other concerning 10 days
versus 15 days. The Commission discussed 1000 cubic yards
versus 3000 cubic yards as a review standard.
Richard Massie indicated that he preferred 3000 cubic yards
and Mike Batie agreed. Betty Sipes noted that the ordinance
was not intended to catch developers, but to bring matters
to the Commission's attention so that we would have better
development. There was discussion concerning large tract
residential builders. Joe White indicated that residential
developers would not take out more trees than required. He
said that he was in favor of the ordinance as amended by
staff. He suggested that cuts 15 feet or greater needed
regulation and stated that he preferred the 25% tree
clearance standard as opposed to 10 %. David Jones noted
that other than two or three glaring examples, the develop-
ment community had done a pretty good job. Additional
comments were made by Marc Johnson, David Werling,
John Miller, and Bob Callans. Staff noted that drawings
would be added to the drainage manual to provide more
specific guidelines for professional persons preparing
Grading and Drainage Plans.
The Commission then reviewed draft #6 and the amendments
recommended by staff. By unanimous consent, the proposed
amendment on page 2 relating to the designated floodplain
was accepted. With regard to page 3, Richard Massie made a
motion, seconded by Jerilyn Nicholson, that in Section A the
height of cut and fill be changed to 15 feet. The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes and 1 no (Jones). Richard Massie
made a motion that Section B on page 3 be left at 5 acres.
The motion was seconded by Jerilyn Nicholson and passed by a
vote of 7 ayes, 1 no (Ketcher) and 1 abstention (Jones).
The proposed amendment at the bottom of page 3 referring to
the subsections in that section was agreed upon by unanimous
consent. Richard Massie made a motion that a new Section C
relating to clearing or cutting trees be substituted as
proposed by staff on page 3. The motion was seconded by
Jerilyn Nicholson and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 no. On
page 4, the Commission agreed by unanimous consent to
recommend the proposed amendments on that page relating to
improved wording, tree trimming, and permanency of utility
one -time approvals.
The Commission discussed whether or not landscape architects
should be allowed to prepare appropriate reports to justify
a plan modification. The Commission voted 8 ayes and 1 no
(Jones) to recommend allowing landscape architects on page 7
to prepare appropriate reports. With regard to page 8,
after discussion, Walter Riddick made a motion that the
amendment relating to terracing be approved, with insertion
of the word "maximum" before the word "ratio ". The motion
passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 abstention (Jones).
The Commission agreed to accept by unanimous consent the
amendment at the bottom of page 9 which was a followup to a
previously approved amendment. Jerilyn Nicholson made a
motion to approve the recommended amendments on page 10
relating to 150 cubic feet per second and measurement of the
25 foot strip from the top of the bank. The motion was
seconded by Richard Massie and passed by a vote of 8 ayes
and 1 no ( Riddick). Regarding page 12, David Jones noted
that the City should be aware of the problems of trees dying
in a particular area. Staff indicated that a property owner
would not be penalized due to damage to trees resulting from
Dutch Elm Disease or air pollution. Jerilyn Nicholson made
a motion to insert the words "and maintaining" on page 12.
The motion was seconded by Rose Collins and passed by a vote
of 9 ayes and 0 noes. By unanimous consent, the Commission
agreed to amendments on pages 14, 15, and 17 relating to
landscape architects preparing plans and improvement of
wording in the ordinance.
The Commission discussed whether or not the staff review
period should be increased to 15 days. Mike Batie indicated
that staff could come back in a year to advise whether or
not the 10 day review period was working or not. There was
discussion of 3000 cubic yards versus 1000 cubic yards and
Mike Batie recommended 3000 cubic yards as a standard.
William Ketcher made a motion to insert a new Section D on
page 3 to require a grading permit if more than 3000 cubic
yards of cut and fill activity is involved. The motion was
seconded by Walter Riddick and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 0
noes and 1 abstention (Perkins). After discussion of the
need for a performance bond, Jerilyn Nicholson expressed the
Commission's appreciation for input from various members of
the public. William Ketcher made a motion to recommend
passage of the Excavation Ordinance as amended. The motion
was seconded by Walter Riddick and passed by a vote of 8
ayes, 0 noes, and 1 abstention (Jones).
ORDINANCE N0. _________________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 14,780
(STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE ORDINANCE)
BY INSERTING A NEW ARTICLE 5A ESTABLISHING
STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONTROL OF LAND
ALTERATION ACTIVITIES INCLUDING GRADING, CUTS,
FILLS AND CLEARING; ESTABLISHING THE PROCEDURE FOR
APPROVING AND ISSUING PERMITS; PROVIDING SITE
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN GUIDELINES AND
SPECIFICATIONS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That Ordinance No. 14,780 (Stormwater
Management and Drainage Ordinance), enacted December 4,
1984, is hereby amended by adding thereto a new Article 5A
reading as follows:
ARTICLE 5A
LAND ALTERATION REGULATIONS
The City of Little Rock has in the
past experienced development activity causing the
displacement of large amounts of earth and tree cover.
Significant problems resulting from such development have
been flooding, soil erosion and sedimentation, unstable
slopes, and impaired quality of life. These problems are a
concern because of their negative effects on the safety and
general welfare of the community.
�Bs2__PvI &Q�s - The purposes of this Ordinance are to
prevent excessive grading, clearing, filling, cutting or
similar activities; to substantially reduce flooding,
1
2
3
4
5
erosion and sediment damage within the City of Little Rock;
to safeguard the safety and welfare of citizens; to
establish reasonable standards and procedures for
development which prevent potential flooding, erosion and
sediment damage; to prevent the pollution of streams, ponds
and other watercourses by sediment; to minimize the danger
of flood loss and loss due to unstable slopes; and to
preserve natural vegetation which enhances the quality of
life of the community.
5A.3--General Requirements - Persons engaged in land
alteration activities regulated by this Ordinance shall take
measures to protect neighboring public and private
properties from damage by such activities. The require-
ments of this ordinance, however, are not intended to
prevent the reasonable use of properties as permitted by the
Zoning Ordinance.
Except as exempted by
Section 5A.5, any person, firm, corporation or business
proposing to engage in grading, clearing, filling, cutting,
quarrying, construction or similar activities regulated by
this Ordinance shall apply to the City Engineer for approval
of plans and issuance of a grading permit as specified in
this Ordinance. No land shall be altered to the extent
herein regulated unless such a permit is issued.
A grading permit is required for large or extensive
land alteration activities specified in the next paragraph.
However, all construction work shall include appropriate
drainage and erosion control measures to protect neighboring
properties. Also, all properties within the designated
floodplain shall be required to obtain a grading permit
without exception.
2.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Grading permits, which may be obtained as part of a
building permit, shall be required for any of the following
activities on land zoned or intended for commercial,
industrial, office, multi - family or institutional use,
unless exempted in Section 5A.5:
A. A hillside cut greater than 15 feet vertical with
a proposed slope greater than one and one -half
foot horizontal to one foot vertical (34 degrees)
or a fill resulting in an embankment with a slope
greater than one and one -half foot horizontal to
one foot vertical (34 degrees) and with a height
greater than 15 feet vertical. Vertical distances
shall be measured from the top and toe of a cut or
fill.
An application for any such activity shall be
reviewed by the City Engineer and approved by the
Planning Commission, prior to.issuance of a
permit.
B. Grading, filling, hillside cutting, quarrying,
construction or similar activities involving more
than five acres of such activities, unless
exempted by Section 5A.5 of this Ordinance.
C. Clearing or cutting of trees covering 25 percent
or..more of a tract, subject to the following
limits:
1. The area of clearing and cutting must exceed
one acre in size before a grading permit
is required; and
2. Five acres is the largest area of clearing
or cutting that can occur without a grading
permit, even if the area of clearing and
cutting is less than 25 percent of a tract.
3.
1
2 D. Any construction activity where the total volume
3 of cut or fill is equal to or greater than 3,000
4 cubic yards.
5
6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Grading and
7 Drainage Plan must be submitted to and approved by the City
8 Engineer for activities specified in Subsections B, C, and D
9 of this Section.
10
11 E. Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan
12
13 1. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan may be
14 submitted for authorization to the City
15 Engineer for agricultural uses or forestry
16 activities on land owned by a forest - related
17 industry.
18
19 2. When the application is for a planned unit
20 development, conditional use permit, site
21 plan review, subdivision, or multiple
22 building site approval, a Sketch Grading and
23 Drainage Plan shall be required in the
24 application to the Planning Commission only
25 if any of the activities specified in
26 Subsections A thru D of this Section are
27 involved.
28
29 F. One -Time Approvals
30
31 1. Utility organizations may obtain a one -time
32 approval from the City Engineer for all
33 routine tree trimming and installation,
34 maintenance, replacement and repair of fence
35 and sign posts, telephone poles and other
36 kinds of posts or poles and overhead or
4.
underground electric, water, sewer, natural
gas, telephone or cable facilities. The
approval will include a utility organization
and its contractors, agents or assigns and
will be permanent in nature as long as the
original approved procedures are followed.
However, large -scale utility projects
involving clearing of areas over 25 feet in
width shall not be authorized by one -time
approval of all projects. In such cases, a
separate grading permit must be obtained for
each project. The land use shall be
considered to be equivalent to industrial
uses covered by the provisions of this
ordinance.
2. One -time approval may be obtained by public
or private entities for the stock piling of
construction spoil material at particular
locations.
�As�__E�e�ngtgr - A grading permit shall not be
required for:
A. Construction of a single - family residence.
B. Previously platted single - family residential
subdivisions including those for which preliminary
plat approval was given prior to the adoption of
this Ordinance.
C. All land alterations totaling five contiguous
acres or less, except where such five -acres or
less is part of a larger area of common owner-
ship that will be altered, and except where any of
the activities specified in Subsections A, C and
D of Section 5A.4 above is involved.
D. Emergency work or repairs to protect life, limb
or property.
E. Mining and mining operations. These fall under
the Open Cut Land Reclamation Act, which is
regulated by the Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology.
For
each grading and drainage permit to be issued, the following
procedure must be followed:
A. Grading and Drainage Plan.
The Plan shall include erosion and sediment
control provisions meeting standards established
by the Department of Public Works in the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual.
B. Approval.
The City Engineer shall in writing approve,
disapprove or recommend modification of the
Grading and Drainage Plan within 10 working days
after the date of submittal, unless Planning
Commission approval is required or a Sketch
Grading and Drainage Plan must be submitted as
part of a Planning Commission application.
Failure of the City Engineer to act upon a Plan
within the required 10 working days shall result
in automatic approval of the Plan.
6
All applications for which Planning Commission
approval is required shall be placed on the next
available Planning Commission agenda after the
10 day review period. Sketch Grading and Drainage
Plans shall be reviewed and reported upon by the
City Engineer by the time of the applicable
Subdivision Committee meeting, if possible, but
not later than the applicable Planning Commission
meeting. Except for residential subdivision work,
the approval of a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan
shall not eliminate the need to submit and have
approved a complete Grading and Drainage Plan,
prior to issuance of a building permit or the
initiation of work. For residential subdivision
work, only a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan
shall be required, and clearing and grading work
may proceed prior to approval of construction
drawings. The Sketch Plan for residential sub-
divisions must indicate how runoff, erosion, and
sedimentation will be controlled only during
street construction.
C. Issuance of Grading Permit.
Upon approval of the final Plan, the Department of
Public Works shall issue a grading permit. A stop
order may be issued by the City Engineer if, upon
ipspection, he determines that the work is not
progressing in accordance with the approved Plan.
The City Engineer may allow modifications of the
Plan to alleviate problems encountered by the
applicant during the process of construction. In
reviewing applications for modifications, the
City Engineer may require from the applicant's
engineer, architect, or landscape architect
appropriate reports and data sufficient to make a
7.
decision. Major changes to Plans approved by the
Planning Commission either in sketch or final form
shall not be permitted without resubmittal to the
Commission. Examples of major changes are those
that substantially increase the height of cuts,
the area of clearing or grading, or impacts on
neighboring properties. More than a twenty
percent increase in height, area or impact will
normally be considered a major change. Examples
of increased impacts include reductions in
buffer area, increased cubic feet of runoff on
adjacent properties, and increased site area that
is visible from adjacent properties or a public
street.
-
Preparation of Grading and Drainage Plans shall follow the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual adopted by the
Department of Public Works and shall be evaluated on the
basis of the following considerations:
A. Limiting cuts to 15 feet in height unless
geotechnical information demonstrating slope
stability, erosion control, and drainage control
is provided, together with a plan for landscaping
portions of the cut area. A series of smaller
cuts with terraces, reserving portions of natural
vegetation and providing areas for planting should
be considered in situations where more than 15
feet of cut is needed. It is recommended that
terracing be at a maximum ratio of one to one,
i.e. at least one foot of horizontal terrace for
every foot of vertical surface with a maximum of
10 vertical feet allotted.
B. Planning of development to fit topography,
soils, geology, hydrology, and other existing
site conditions;
C. Providing for safety against unstable slopes or
slopes subject to erosion and deterioration, in
in order to protect human lives and property;
D. Grading to complement natural land forms;
E. After grading, accomplishing all paving, seeding,
sodding, or mulching in accordance with a
reasonable schedule approved by the City
Engineer.
F. Allocating to open space and recreation uses
those areas not well suited to development, as
evidenced by existing competent soils, geology,
and hydrology investigations and reports;
G. Minimizing the potential for soil loss by
retaining natural vegetation wherever possible;
H. Making appropriate provisions such as those in the
City's Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual
to accommodate stormwater runoff and soil loss
occasioned by changed soil and surface conditions
during and after development, including the use of
vegetation and limitations on soil exposure;
I. Scheduling permanent improvements such as streets,
storm sewers, curb and gutters, and other features
for control of storm runoff as soon as economi-
cally and physically feasible (not up front),
before removing vegetation cover from the area, so
that large areas are not left bare and exposed for
9
1
2
3
4
5
long periods of time, beyond the capacity of
temporary control measures; and
J. Installing and maintaining temporary or permanent
sediment basins, debris basins, desilting basins
or silt traps to specifically reduce sediment from
runoff water.
K. Maintaining where feasible a perimeter strip,
undisturbed except for reasonable access, around
areas cleared of trees covering 25 percent or
more of a tract, the perimeter standard being
a 25 foot perimeter strip for sites over one
acre in size. In addition, a strip at least
25 feet wide, undisturbed except for reasonable
access, should be provided where feasible on
each side of a stream with a 10 year storm
greater than 150 cubic feet per second on such
sites. The 25 foot strip should be measured
from the top of the bank.
One plan may be
submitted incorporating provisions for compliance, where
applicable, with the City's landscaping, drainage detention,
grading, clearing, filling, cutting, quarrying, and
construction requirements. One permit may be issued to
cover all of these requirements.
In an application to comply with
any of the City's requirements specified in this Section,
the applicant must declare large or extensive land
alterations described in subsections A, B, C and D of
Section 5A.4 of this Ordinance.
A fee for each grading permit shall be
paid as set forth in the table below to the City Collector
10.
by each person seeking a permit for land alteration
activities. The permit fee is to defray the costs of
reviewing the site Grading and Drainage Plan, making
on -site inspections, and providing the other services
required in the administration of this Ordinance. No
fee shall be required in connection with a Sketch Grading
Plan filed as part of an application to the Planning
Commission or in connection with a one -time approval.
TABLE 17.1 GRADING PERMIT REVIEW AND INSPECTION FEES
Total Project Area
Less than 1/2 acre
1/2 acre to 1 acre
Greater than 1 acre
Fee
$25.00 per permit
$40.00 per permit
$50.00 per acre up to
a maximum of $250.00
X111 I�speeto�_aD�_�QB���ee - The City Engineer
shall be responsible for determining whether construction is
proceeding according to the Grading and Drainage Plan.
A. Inspections of the development site shall be
performed by Department of Public Works
inspectors. In applying for a grading permit,
the applicant shall be deemed to have consented
to such inspections.
B. The City Engineer, through such periodic
inspections, shall ensure that erosion control
measures are implemented within one week after
cessation or completion of all or portions of
authorized work. The City Engineer may where
necessary order remedial work or issue a stop
11.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
order in accordance with the procedures in
Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the Stormwater Management
and Drainage Ordinance.
5A.!2__Appg -q1z - Final decisions of the City Engineer
regarding Grading and Drainage Plans shall be subject to
review by the Planning Commission, provided an appeal is
filed by the applicant within 30 days after the date of the
final written decision. All appeals shall be reviewed by
the Subdivision Committee prior to Planning Commission
action. Notice of the appeal shall be given to adjacent
property owners, including those across a street or alley
from the subject property, at least 10 days prior to the
Planning Commission meeting at which the appeal is to be
considered. Said notice shall be by certified mail and
shall be the responsibility of the applicant.
5As13__ Restoraor�s _�g�_���_Sp��ial_��oy�o�� - In
addition to the fine specified in Section 6.2 of the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Ordinance, any person,
firm, or corporation which engages in land alteration
activities regulated by this Ordinance without obtaining a
grading permit shall be required to restore the land, to the
maximum extent possible, to its original condition by
planting and maintaining grass and trees with trunks at
least two inches in diameter (measured one foot above ground
level) in accordance with accepted spacing standards and by
under- taking other restoration activities determined to be
feasible'by a court of law. Since complete restoration of
disturbed areas may not be possible within a reasonable
period of time, the violator also shall pay a fee where
appropriate in an amount necessary, as determined by the
City Engineer, to cover the cost of the City implementing
measures to mitigate any potential flooding, erosion, or
sediment damage resulting from the violation. All fines
received as a result of illegal land alteration activities
12.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
shall be placed in a special fund to be administered by the
City Manager. The fund shall be used for the purpose of
restoring disturbed lands, mitigating damages resulting from
violations, or otherwise making drainage improvements or
planting vegetation in the general vicinity of violations.
Appendix A of this Ordinance contains
the specifications for a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan
and a complete Grading and Drainage Plan. Said Appendix A
is attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Definitions for terms contained in Appendix
B of this Ordinance shall be inserted in alphabetical order
into Section 1.6 (Definitions) of Ordinance No. 14,780
(Stormwater Management and Drainage Ordinance).
SECTION 3. All prior ordinances or parts of ordinances
inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of their inconsistency.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in
full force 30 days from and after its passage and approval.
PASSED:-. -----------------
ATTEST:
City--Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____ APPROVED:- __�.___.___-
iMayor
- _- ___.___�._____- _— __...._.Yw_
City Attorney
13.
SECTION Al. Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan. A
Sketch Plan shall identify the following:
A. Acreage of the proposed project.
B. Land areas to be disturbed, shown by hatching
or specking such areas which will be graded,
cut, filled, or cleared.
C. Stages of grading showing the limits of
sections to be graded and indicating the
approximate order of development.
D. The extent of cuts and fills, shown by
drawing a dashed line along the top of the
cut and toe of the fill and marking the
lines "C" and "F ". The height and slope
of cuts and fills also shall be indicated.
E. Provisions for collecting and discharging
surface water.
F. Erosion and sediment measures, including
structural and /or vegetative measures.
G, Seal and signature of a registered engineer,
architect, or landscape architect which
certify that the Sketch Grading and Drainage
Plan complies with the Ordinance. However,
plans for areas less than 5 acres where cuts
or fills are not greater than 25 feet in
height may be prepared by a contraftor or the
property owner.
14.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SECTION A2. Grading and Drainage Plan. In addition to
the requirements for a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan, a
complete Grading and Drainage Plan shall include the
following:
A. Seal of a registered engineer certifying that the
Grading and Drainage Plan complies with the
Ordinance. The seal of a registered architect
or landscape architect will be acceptable if all
required boundary street and drainage improve-
ments are in place.
B. A vicinity drawing showing: location of property
lines; location and names of all existing or
platted streets or other public ways within or
immediately adjacent to the tract.
C. Location of all known existing sewers, water
mains, culverts and underground utilities within
the tract and immediately adjacent thereto;
location of existing permanent buildings on
or immediately adjacent to the site if right of
entry can be obtained to locate same.
D. Citation of any existing legal rights -of -way or
easements affecting the property.
E. Soil loss calculations as estimated by the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (see definition in
Appendix B). Allowable soil loss shall not
exceed 5 tons per acre per year. Examples of
soil loss calculations are contained in the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual of
the Department of Public Works.
15.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
F. A plan of the site at a minimum scale of 1 inch =
100 feet showing:
1. Address and telephone number of the owner,
developer, and person responsible for
maintenance of the temporary and /or
permanent erosion and sediment control
measures.
2. The approximate location and width of
proposed streets.
3. The approximate locations and dimensions of
all proposed or existing lots.
4. The approximate locations and dimensions of
all parcels of land proposed to be set aside
for parks, playgrounds, natural condition
perimeters, public use, or for the
use of property owners in the proposed
development.
5. Existing topography at a maximum of five -foot
contour intervals.
6. Proposed topography at a maximum of five -foot
contour intervals.
7. An approximate timing schedule, indicating
the anticipated starting and completion dates
of the development; a timing schedule for the
sequence of grading and application of
erosion and sediment control measures.
B. Acreage of the proposed project.
16.
9. Identification of unusual material or soils
in land areas to be disturbed. If any
surface indications of unusual materials or
soils that would cause street or lot
instability, such as nonvertical tree growth,
old slides, seepage, or depressions in the
soil are visible before grading,they should
be noted and accompanied by the engineer's,
architect's, landscape architect's, or
contractor's recommendation for correcting
such problem areas.
10. Identification of suitable material to be
used for fills shall be accomplished before
actual filling begins. If there are any
surface indications that local material is
not suitable for fills, those areas to be
filled with outside material should be
identified and the -type and source of the
fill material noted.
11. Specification of measures to control runoff,
erosion and sedimentation during the process
of construction, noting those areas where
control of runoff will be required during
construction and indicating what will be
used, such as straw bales, silt dams, brush
check dams, lateral hillside ditches, catch
basins, etc.
12. Measures to protect neighboring built -up
areas and City property during the process
of construction, noting work to be performed,
such as cleaning existing ditches, storm
culverts and catch basins or raising
existing curbs in neighboring areas.
17.
1
2
13. Provisions to stabilize soils and slopes
3
after completion of streets, sewers and other
4
improvements, noting on the grading plan when
5
and where ground cover will be planted, also
6
noting any other means to be used such as
7
placement.of stone embankments and riprap or
8
construction of retaining walls.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
18.
1
2
3 The following terms utilized in this Ordinance shall be
4 defined as provided below:
5
6 Agriculture - All farm enterprises such as: crop land,
7 forage production; animal husbandry, dairy and poultry; and
8 floriculture.
9
10 Developer - A person, partnership or a corporation
11 engaged in land alteration activities which are not excluded
12 by the Exemption Section of this Ordinance.
13
14 Land Alteration - The process of grading, clearing,
15 filling, cutting, quarrying, construction or similar
16 activities, unless excluded by the Exemption Section of this
17 Ordinance.
18
19 Erosion - The wearing away of land by action of wind,
20 water or gravity.
21
22 Forestry Operation - An operation conducted on land
23 owned or leased by a major forestry industry corporation for
24 the systematic harvest of timber.
15
26 Grading and Drainage Plan - The plan required before a
27 grading permit can be issued.
28
29 Mulching - The application of plant or other suitable
30 materials on a soil surface to conserve moisture, reduce
31 erosion, and aid in establishing plant cover.
32
33 Sediment - Rock, sand, gravel, silt, clay or other
34 material deposited by action of wind, water or gravity.
35
36
19.
1 Sedimentation Basin - The storage area created by a
barrier or dam built across a waterway or at other suitable
3 locations to retain rock, sand, gravel, silt, clay or other
4 material.
Universal Soil Loss Equation - A method developed by
the Agricultural Research Service, USDA, and used to
estimate soil erosion based on a rainfall, soil erodibility,
slope of the land, length of slope and plant cover. The
basic form of the equation is:
E= R R L S C P
Where: E = soil loss, in tons per acre per year
R = rainfall factor
R = soil erodibility factor
LS = slope length gradient factor
C = vegetative.cover factor
P = conservation practice factor
Examples of soil loss calculations are contained in the
Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual of the Department
of Public Works.
20.
SECTIONS OF THE
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE ORDINANCE
REFERRED TO IN THE PROPOSED
EXCAVATION ORDINANCE
suffering, and (2) to minimize the hazards of personal
injury and loss of life due to flooding, to be accomplished
through the approval of a stormwater management and
drainage plan pursuant 'to the provisions of these
regulations, which: (a) establish the major and minor
stormwater management systems, (b) define and establish
stormwater management practices and use restrictions, and
(c) establish guidelines for handling increases in volume
and peak discharges of runoff.
1.6 Definitions - For the purpose of this Ordinance,
certain terms and words shall be used, interpreted and
defined as set forth in this section. Unless the context
clearly indicates to the contrary, words used in the present
tense include the future tense; words used in the singular
shall include the plural, and vice - versa; the words, "these
regulations," mean "this Ordinance;" the word, "person,"
includes corporation, partnership, and unincorporated.
association of persons; and the word, "shall," is always
mandatory.
X. Base Flood - The flood that has a 1 percent chance
of being equaled or exceeded in any given year, i.e., the
100 -Year Flood.
B. Bond - Any form of security for the completion or
performance of the stormwater management and drainage plan
or the maintenance of drainage improvements, including
surety bond, collateral, property or instrument of credit,
or escrow deposit in an amount and form satisfactory to the
City Engineer.
C. Building - Any structure built for the support,
shelter or enclosures of persons, animals, chattels, or
movable property of any kind.
D. Channel - Course of perceptible extent which
periodically or continuously contains moving water, or which
forms a connecting link between two bodies of water, and
which has a definite bed and banks.
E. Conduit - Any open or closed device for conveying
flowing water.
F. Control - The hydraulic characteristic which
determines the stage- discharge relationship in a conduit.
The control is usually critical depth, tailwater• depth, or
uniform depth.
G. Detention Basins - Any man -made area which serves
as a means of controlling and temporarily storing stormwater
runoff. The facility normally drains completely between
spaced runoff events, e.g., parking lots, rooftops, athletic
fields, dry wells, oversized storm drain pipes.
2.
H. Detention - The temporary detaining or storage of
floodwater in reservoirs, on parking lots, on rooftops and
other areas under predetermined and controlled conditions -
accompanied by controlled release of the stored water.
I. Detention Pond - A stormwater detention facility
which maintains a fixed minimum water elevation between
runoff events except for the lowering resulting from losses
of water due to infiltration or evaporation.
J. Development - Any change of land use or
improvement on any parcel.land.
K. Differential Runoff - The volume and rate of flow
of stormwater runoff discharged from a parcel of land or
drainage area which is or will be greater than the volume
and rate which pertained prior to proposed development or
redevelopment existed.
L. Drainage Approval- - A certificate of approval
issued by the City Engineer based upon an approved final
stormwater management and drainage plan. The'final
stormwater management and drainage plan must accompany the
building permit application or be submitted with the
proposed construction plans.
M. Drainage Easement - Authorization by a property
owner for use by another party or parties for all or any
portion of his /her land for a drainage and adjoining utility
purposes. Easements shall be dedicated to the City when
required or approved by the City Engineer.
N. Engineer of Record - A registered professional
engineer in Arkansas. This engineer shall supervise the
design and construction of the project and shall be
acceptable by the City Engineer.
0. Floodplain - A land area adjoining a river,
stream, watercourse or lake which is likely to be flooded.
P. Floodway - The channel of a river or other
watercourse and the adjacent land areas that must be
reserved in order to discharge the base flood without a
cumulative increase of the water surface elevation more than
a designated height.
Q. Freeboard - A factor of safety expressed as the
difference in elevation between the top of the detention
basin dam, levees, culvert entrances and other hydraulic
structures, and the design flow elevation.
R. Frequency_ - The reciprocal of the exceedance
probability.
3.
S. Habitable Dwelling Unit - A dwelling unit i.-.tended
and suitable for human habitation.
T. Major Storm Easements - Privately maintained areas
designed to carry the 100 -year storm with no obstructions
allowed such as fill or fences that would impede floodwater
flow. Properly designed landscaping that does not impede
floodwater or endanger adjacent property may be allowed.
U. Minor Storm Easements - Public maintained areas
designed to carry the 10 -year (or 50 -year for CBD area)
storm; provide access for maintenance; and prevent channel
obstructions.
V. On -Site Detention - Temporary storage of runoff on
the same land development site where the runoff is
generated.
W. On- Stream Detention - Temporary storage of runoff
within a principal drainage system, i.e., in the receiving
streams or conduits.
X. Off- Stream Detention - Temporary storage
accomplished off -line, �.e., not within a principal drainage
system.
Y. 100 -Year Peak Flow - The peak rate of flow of
water at a given point in a channel, watercourse or conduit
resulting from the base flood.
Z. 100 -Year Storm - Rainstorms of a specified
duration having a 1 percent chance of occurrence in a given
year.
AA. Permittee - A person, partnership or corporation
to whom a permit is granted.
BB. Plat - A legally recorded plat of a parcel of land
subdivided into lots with streets, alleys, easements, and
other land lines drawn to scale.
CC:. Project - Any development involving the
construction, reconstruction or improvement of structures
and /or grounds.
DD. Rational Method - An empirical formula for
calculating peak rates of runoff resulting from rainfail.
EE. Retention Facility - Any type of detention
facility not provided with a positive outlet.
FF. Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual - The
set of drainage policies, analysis methods, design charts,
4.
stormwater runoff methods, and design standards used by the
City as the official design guidelines for drainage
improvements consistent with this Ordinance. Any
modifications will be made by the City Engineer consistent
with the stated policies and intent of the Ordinance.
GG. Stormwater Runoff - water that results from
precipitation which is not absorbed by the soil, evaporated
into the atmosphere or entrapped by ground surface
depressions and vegetation, which flows over the ground
surface.
HH. Structure - Any object constructed above or below
ground. Pipes, manholes and certain other utility
structures which exist underground may be excluded from this
definition.
II. Swale - A shallow waterway.
JJ. Time of Concentration - The estimated time in
minutes required for runoff to flow from the most remote
section of the drainage area to the point at which the flow
is to be determined.
KK. Tributary Area - All of the area that contributes
stormwater runoff to a given point.
LL. Uniform Channel - A channel with a constant cross
section and roughness.
MM. Wet Bottom Basin - A detention basin intended to
have a permanent pool.
NN. Watercourse - Any surface stream, creek, brook,
branch, depression, reservoir, lake, pond or drainageway in
or into which stormwater runoff flows.
ARTICLE 2.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
2.1 General - This article establishes the stormwater
runoff management system of the City of Little Rock which
shall be composed of a major system and a minor system,
management controls and management practices. These
regulations shall apply in the minor system.
2.2 The Major System - The major system is the area in
any drainageway within the limits of flow of a 100 -year
storm.
2.3 The Minor System - The minor systems will be
composed of all watercourses and drainage structures, both
public and private, that are not part of the major system,
because of lower design storm frequencies.
5.
Engineer shall approve the plan. Project approval shall be
issued in the name of the applicant who shall then be known
and thereafter be referred to as the permittee. An approved
permit shall set forth the terms and conditions of the
approve stormwater management and drainage plan.
5.4 Engineer of Record - Should the original Engineer
of Record be prevented from completing the project, the
Permittee shall employ another qualified engineer and notify
the City Engineer immediately.
ARTICLE 6.
ENFORCEMENT
6.1 General - It shall be the duty of the
to bring to
or lack of
the attention of the City Attorney
compliance herewith.
City Engineer
any violation
6.2 Violations and Penalties - Any Permittee (person,
firm or corporation) who fails to comply with or violates
any of these regulations shall be guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than
$100 per day and not more than $500 per day.
6.3 Inspection - The City Engineer shall be responsible
for determining w -ether the stormwater management and
drainage plan is in conformance with the requirements
specified by the City's Stormwater Management and Drainage
Manual. Also, the City Engineer shall be responsible for
e -eermining whether the development plan is proceeding in
accordance with the approved drainage plan. Periodic
inspection of the development site shall be made by the City
Engineer's office. Through such periodic inspections, the
City Engineer's office shall ensure that the stormwater
management and drainage plan is properly implemented and
that the improvements are maintained.
6.4 Remedial work - If it is determined through
inspection that the development is not proceeding in
accordance with the approved stormwater management and
drainage plan, and drainage and /or building permit, the City
Engineer shall immediately issue written notice to the
permittee and the surety of the nature and location of the
alleged noncompliance, accompanied by documentary evidence
demonstrating noncompliance and specifying what remedial
work is necessary to bring the project into compliance. The
permittee so notified shall immediately, unless weather
conditions or other factors beyond the control of the
permittee prevent immediate remedial action, commence the
recommended remedial action and shall complete the remedial
work within 72 hours or within a reasonable time as
determined in advance by the City Engineer. Upon
14.
satisfactory completion of remedial work, the City Engineer
shall issue a notice of compliance and the development may
proceed.
6.5 Revocation of Permits or Approvals; Stop Orders -
---3�'The City Engineer after giving five days written notice, may
revoke the permit issued pursuant to the regulations for any
project which is found upon inspection to be in violation of
the provisions of these regulations, and for which the
permittee has not agreed to undertake remedial work as
provided in Section 6.4. Drainage and /or building permits
may also be revoked if remedial work is not completed within
the time allowed. Upon revocation of a permit or approval,
the City Engineer shall issue a stop work order. Such stop
work order shall be directed to the permittee and he shall
immediately notify persons owning the land, developer, and
those persons or firms actually performing the physical work
of clearing, grading, and developing the land. The stop
work order shall direct the parties involved to cease and
desist all or any portion of the work on the development for
a portion thereof which is not in compliance, except such
remedial work necessary to bring the project into
compliance.
ARTICLE 7.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Interpretation, Conflict and Severability
Interpretations
A. Interpretation - In their interpretation and
application, the provisions of these regulations shall be
held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the
public health, safety and general welfare.
B. Conflict with Public and Private Provisions -
These regulations are not intended to interfere with,
abrogate, or annul any other ordinance, rule or regulation,
statute or other provision of law. Where any provision of
these, regulations imposes restrictions different from those
imposed by any other provision of these regulations or any
other ordinance, rule or regulation, or other provision of
law, whichever provisions are more restrictive or impose
higher standards, shall control.
Private Provisions - These regulations are not intended
to abrogate any easement, covenant or any other private
agreement or restriction, provided that where the provisions
of these regulations are more restrictive or impose higher
standards or regulations that such easement, covenant or
other private agreement or restriction, the requirements of
these regulations shall govern. Where the provisions of the
15.
January 27, 1987
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. 2 - 65th West District Plan
NAME: City of Little Rock
LOCATION: A 6 mile area west of
University Avenue north
of Forbing Road and I -430 on
the west
REQUEST:
STAFF REPORT:
Adoption of this district
land use plan
The 65th West District Plan has been prepared by the staff
illustrating many of the uses and zoning currently in
existence. The plan recognizes the University Avenue
corridor as a major commercial area. It also recognizes
some neighborhood commercial areas and industrial uses along
Stagecoach Road.
The land use emphasizes that Stagecoach Road is mainly a
rural residential corridor and has not gone through a
transformation from residential to commercial. The plan
stresses that the commercial use should be concentrated at
existing sites and major planned intersections and not in a
strip configuration along Stagecoach Road.
This land use plan would recommend that changes be made in
the Master Street Plan that would eliminate or downgrade
several streets in this area. These roadways are
considered, by the staff, as unrealistic because of the cost
of bridge construction and road construction in the
floodplain.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
65th Street West District Plan understanding that the staff
will present amendments to the Master Street Plan at a later
date.
January 27, 1987
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. 2 - Continued
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 27 -87)
The plan was presented to the Planning Commission. No
citizen spoke from the audience. Staff recommended
extending the neighborhood commercial shown at the
intersection of Stagecoach Road and Lanehart Road to include
one additional parcel to the north along Stagecoach Road.
Don McChesney addressed Master Street Plan changes to be
made at a later date. The plan was approved as presented by
a vote of 7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention, and 3 absent.
January 27, 1987
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. 3 - Amendment to Highway 10 Plan
_
NAME: Whitten McInnis
LOCATION:
Highway 10 and Woodland
Heights Road
REQUEST: A request for the Planning
Commission to reconsider the
Woodland Heights area, the
Highway 10 Plan (See enclosed
letter)
STAFF REPORT:
The Highway 10 Plan was the first element of the
Extraterritorial Land Use Plan. The staff and Planning
Commission recommended that the Woodland Heights area be
shown as a MXD with a specific set of development
guidelines. The final action by the Board of Directors
showed the area as single family.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION: (5- 20 -86)
An ordinance adopting the Highway 10 Land Use Plan of the
Extraterritorial Land Use Plan;
(The proposed ordinance was ready for the first time and
amended on May 6, 1986.)
Before the second reading of the ordinance, a discussion
ensued with both support and opposition being present. The
land use plan included 37 acres on the south side of Highway
10 between Fairway and Woodland Heights Road to be one
development mixing office, multifamily, residential, and
commercial uses. Attorney Christoper Barrier, representing
the Pleasant Ridge Development Company which owns part of
the acreage said asking that the 37 acres be developed as a
unit was unrealistic. Attorney David P. Henry, a resident
of Woodland Heights, Ms. Earnestine Rush, 11525 Summit Road,
Mr. Jake Clements, 11621 Summit Road, and Deanna Piggee
Kinsey, spoke in support of the plan asking that it be
approved as submitted. Director Milton stated the misuse
would lead to demise of the residential area and would
January 27, 1987
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. 3 - Continued
cause unbelievable traffic problems. To conclude the
discussion, Director Milton moved, seconded by Director
Shackleford, that the plan be amended to omit the 37 acres
described as MXD (in the Summit and Woodland Heights area)
plus those areas designated as office where the skating rink
and kennel are located on the south side of Fairview
Road /Woodland Heights Road, with the omitted sections to be
shown as single family residential. Roll call was taken
which adopted the motion as follows: 4 ayes, 3 noes, and 0
absent.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ACTION: (6 -1 -86)
The Board of Directors discussed the Urban Village Concept
(see attached pages) briefly and then asked the Planning
Commission for their review.
The Board of Directors at a later agenda meeting decided not
to place the Urban Village Amendment to the Highway 10 Plan
on the agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends denial of the Urban Village and the
Mixed Use Concept.
A City traffic study has shown that both concepts would
produce more traffic than the system could handle. The
existing Highway 10 Plan also shows this area as single
family. As long as the Board of Directors' policy is to
keep the area single family, then residential uses are
viable.
Staff would support either keeping the area single family or
support the amending of the plan to show the Highway 10
frontage as a transitional zone.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1-27 -87)
Staff explained why the matter was before the Planning
Commission again and outlined the staff recommendation.
Mr. Whitten McInnis, applicant, said that he represented 90
percent of the homeowners in the Summit Road area and
proceeded to outline the history of the Urban Village and
Mixed Use proposals. He said that he supported either the
Mixed Use or the Urban Village Concept. Henk Koornstra
noted that even with the capacity improvements proposed as
mitigating actions in the traffic study, a traffic capacity
problem would still be present. There was discussion as to
January 27, 1987
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. 3 - Continued
whether the traffic study should be allowed to restrict
development in the Highway 10 area. Chris Barrier,
representing the Pleasant Ridge Development Company, said
that the area should stay single- family until a specific
plan was proposed with details. David Werling, representing
the Walton Heights - Candlewood Homeowners Association,
expressed concern about traffic and the amount of commercial
land use. He noted that guidelines for the Mixed Use
Concept did not cover the percent of commercial, residential
or office land uses. He said that Walton Heights - Candlewood
residents wanted guidelines on proportions of land uses.
Richard Massie indicated 98 percent commercial would not be
proposed by developers or approved by the Commission. He
said that guidelines had been tried, but no one could agree
because it forced the economics of the project.
After further discussion, Jerilyn Nicholson
seconded by Dorothy Arnett that the Plannin
stand by its original recommendation of the
Concept, with the original guidelines. The
7 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention (Riddick), and
reasons for the Commission's recommendation
made a motion,
3 Commission
Mixed Use
vote was:
3 absent. The
were:
1. The Mixed Use Concept will require a mixture of
commercial, multifamily and office uses as part of a
single PUD application covering both the Summit Street
area and the area fronting on Highway 10.
2. The Urban Village Concept is not the best plan for the
area because it fails to deal with the development
potential of property fronting on Highway 10.
3. Traffic matters can be considered at the time of the
PUD submittal. Traffic impacts cannot be properly
evaluated until an actual PUD application is submitted.
The traffic study by the City was based on the Urban
Village Concept, not a mixed use PUD for the larger
area.
4. Traffic considerations should not be allowed to stymie
growth in the Highway 10 area.
5. The area was studied extensively as part of the
Extraterritorial Study, and the Commission stands by
its recommendation made at the conclusion of the
Study.
MIXED USE
SPECIAL PUD REDEVELOPMENT AREA GUIDELINES
FAIRVIEW ROAD /WOODLAND HEIGHTS
Retail Commercial (FAR .2)
Office (FAR .4)
MF Residential (18 Du /Ac)
Q I 4910AW4110 QVW.W;l
Single PUD Submission - 37+ acres
Highway 10 Frontage Access Limited to 1 Per 300 ft.
Frontage Maximum
Major Road Improvements
a) Pleasant Ridge Extension & Rodney Parham
b) Woodland Heights Road to Highway 10 (consists
of lowering terrain)
Building Set -back Minimum of 125 ft. from Centerline of
Highway 10 and 80 ft. Building Setback from Centerline of
Fairview /Woodland Heights Roads,
Landscape Buffer of 25 ft. as indicated on the Plan
In Lieu Contributions Toward Traffic Signals
No Access Across Existing Commercial Tracts Unless in the
Overall PUD
Must Be "Mixed" Use
Total PUD Submission - Single Application
Illustrate Building "Envelopes"
Show Ingress and Egress and Internal Circulator
Illustrate Cross Sections and Preliminary Grading Plan
Show Parking Area
Detail Uses of All The Buildings
Submit Schematic Drainage Plan
Illustrate Landscape and Buffer Areas
Mr. Gary Greeson Planning Department
City Hall
McINNIS PROPERTY GROUP �9�Y�
December 24, 1986
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Woodland Heights Subdivision
Dear Mr. Greeson:
On behalf of the residents of the Woodland Heights Subdivision in Little
Rock, Arkansas, I am requesting that the Planning Commission once again
consider the Woodland Heights area as it relates to the Highway 10
Extra-Territorial Plan previously adopted by the city's Board of Directors.
We will submit two alternatives for the Com mission to consider. The Mixed
Use Development Concept, previously approved by the Planning Commission, and
the Urban Village Plan.
Everyone agrees that the Woodland Heights area is now unsuited for single
family residental use. However, the problem has been in how to best utilize the particular property as a whole. The Mixed Use Development was previously
approved by the Planning Commission, but disallowed by the Board of Directors. It is our contention that the Board of Directors failed to approve this plan
because of their lack of understanding regarding the numerous restrictions
imposed upon the development, i.e., floor area ratios, etc. However, it has
been expressed by various members of the Board that is was never the Boards
intention to not eventually adopt a workable plan for the area. Thus, we have
been advised to proceed once again through the Planning Commission with our
request.
I speak for the property owners when I say that we are extremely
frustrated by the City's failure to resolve the Woodland Heights land use issue. The property owners have complied with every request made to them by
the Staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors, but, have yet to see the issue resolved.
ONE FINANCIAL CENTRE, SUITE 229 • LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 7221 1
(501 l 225-9300
McINNIS
PROPERTY
GROUP
It is for these reasons that the two alternative plans are being
submitted to the Planning Commission. The property owners, again, stand ready
to meet and fulfill any request made of them.
EWM:cgb
Sincerely,
L
E. Wigton McIinnis
ONE FINANCIAL CENTRE. SUITE 229 • LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72211
(501 ) 225.9300
EXISTING CG2-...
CENTRAL FEATURE
Hic,h Visibility FOCUS
of Development
'THE MEADOWS'
Mid Rise Office
_-auz4 ;ng aireei Vesignea Much L e Old Fash
2 &3 Story B ildings wi Commercial Bel w or Housir
Area Should a Surpri a and Delight to rs with a
PROPOSED LAND USES
WOODLAND HEIGHTS
URBAN VILLAGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
HIGHWAY 10 CORRIDOR
GiNERA%. NOTES: The Concept Presented Here is That o e Ur VI e, an Ir�iegrated
Com0uruty Which Offers a Variety of Housing, Working Lei Time ortunities� in an
Area With Well- Defined Boundaries. The Goal is to Create a Sens f Plate oossropolitan
Environment Without the Drawbacks Generally Associated With High D Ity U ife.
In Order to Achieve This, It Will be Necessary to Define an Architectural abula For
the Project, One Which Will Unify the Disparate Land Uses and Areas Within th%,F'roject.
URBAN VILLAGE CONCEPT 3a
NORTH
HIGHWAY 10 PLAN URBAN VILLAGE AREA GUIDELINES
AREA 1 -37 acres bounded by Woodland Heights, Fairview, and Highway 10
AREA 2 -10 acres bounded by Woodland Heights/Pleasant Ridge Road
1.Land Use:
2.Density:
AREA 1
-Single-Family/Multi-Family-Mixed Use (Comercial/Residenti al)-Office
-The Single-Family/Multi-Family Areanorth of the "Promenade" and south ofHighway 10 can be Single-Family Attachedand Detached or Multi-Family. Maximumdensity can not exceed 10 units/acre.
-The Central Shopping Area would be ina two or three story configurationinvolving a mixture of housing units.
-The "Meadows " Office Area would be anOffice Park with the taller structureslocated nearer the commercial core tolessen the impact on the single-familyresidential community to the sout h.
3.Circulation: -In order to provide proper access to this"internal" development area, streets will need to be widened and extended.
4.Curb Cuts:
Woodland He ights and Fairview Road should become collectors and Woodland Heights should be extended to a signalized intersection with Rodney Parham.*
-No curb cuts are allowed on Highway 10.All traffic is oriented to the "internal"development.
*The staff suggests that once the Urban Village concept isadopted, the Master Street Plan should be amended toreflect the changes in the collector streets. Theamendment of the Master Str eet Plan for the extension ofWoodland Heights Road to Rodney Parham was proposed by thestaff some years prior, but was not approved.
5. Buffers: - A 40 ft. landscaped buffer is
proposed on the north side of the
project along Highway 10.
6. Submission - PUD Submission
Requirements - 10 acre minimum
for Rezoning - Any rezoning would need to indicate
& Development: its complementary relationship to
the remainder of the Village property
- A 125 ft. building setback from the
Highway 10 centerline.
- Grading Plan, extensive hillside cuts
to be discouraged.
- Maintenance of existing tree cover to
be encouraged.
AREA 2
1. Land Uses: - office
2. Density: - The eastward site zoned 0 -3 would
follow those requirements of the 0 -3
District. No rezoning to PUD would
be required.
- The density of the west 5 acres
would be regulated by a PUD process.
Buildings of less than 3 stories
in height would be encouraged.
3. Buffer: - A 40 ft. landscaped buffer would be
required for the PUD project located
on the west 5 acres. The buffer
would be located on the west and
south property lines.
4. Submission for - A PUD application would be required
Rezoning and on the west 5 acres to insure
Development: compatibility with the adjacent
single - family areas.
City of Little
Department of
Public Works
Rock
701 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
371-4800
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
July 30, 1986
EXHIBITS
1.STUDY AREA
2.STUDY OBJECTIVES
3.GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS
4.DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES
5.TRAFFIC GENERATED BY NEW DEVELOPMENTS
6.DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
7.PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC AT CANTRELL -RODNEY PARHAM
8.CONCLUSIONS
9.MITIGATING ACTIONS
Engineering Division
EXHIBIT 2
STUDY OBJECTIVES
1. ANALYZE TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF COMMITTED DEVELOPMENT IN
STUDY AREA.
2. ANALYZE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH URBAN
VILLAGE PROJECT.
3. EVALUATE FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO FUTURE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
AND POSSIBLE MITIGATING ACTIONS.
EXHIBIT 3
TRAFFIC ASSUMPTIONS
1."THROUGH" TRAFFIC ON CANTRELL WILL INCREASE LINEARLY FROM
EXISTING LEVELS TO REACH PROJECTED DAILY VOLUMES
PROJECTED BY AHTD FOR YEAR 2005.
2.NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS WILL GENERALLY BE 50% DEVELOPED BY
1991 AND 100% DEVELOPED BY 2005.
3.NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS WILL GENERA TE TRAFFIC WHICH WILL BE
ADDITIONAL TO THE "THROUGH" TRAFFIC PROJECTED BY AHTD.
EXHIBIT 4
DEVELOPMENT ESTIMATES
SINGLE MULTI OFFICE OFFICE AREA FAMILY FAMILY (ACRES) (ACRES)
UNITS UNITS
A 69
B 980 6 5
C 890 4
TOTALS: 0 1,870 79 5
D AS RESIDENTIAL 170 5
D AS "URBAN VILLAGE" 160 20 12
EXHIBIT 5
TRAFFIC GENERATED BY NEW DEVELOPMENT
AREAS A,B,C
AREA D/RESIDENTIAL
AREA D/URBAN VILLAGE
Legend
xxx (xxx) daily vehicles (vehicles in PM peak hour)
YEAR
1991
14,900
(1,925)
375
(75)
4,950
(675)
2005
30,000
(3,850)
2,415
( 330)
10,100
( 1,375)
EXHIBIT 6
DAILY TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS
YEAR
1986 1991 2005
CANTRELL TO EAST 13,700 23,600 35,100
(26,500) (39,200)
CANTRELL TO WEST 9,600 12,500 20,500
(13,300) (22,600)
RODNEY PARHAM TO SOUTH 8,000 11,400 16,000
(12,400) (17,500)
Legend
xxx (xxx) Area D as R-Z (Area D as "Urban Village")
EXHIBIT 8
CONCLUSIONS
1. CANTRELL EAST OF STUDY AREA WILL REACH PLANNED CAPACITY
OF 25,000 VPD WITHIN A FEW YEARS, WITH OR WITHOUT THE
"URBAN" VILLAGE PROJECT.
2. BY 2005, TRAFFIC DEMAND EAST OF STUDY AREA IS PROJECTED TO
REACH 33,800 VPD WITHOUT THE URBAN VILLAGE PROJECT. WITH
THE URBAN VILLAGE PROJECT, THE DEMAND WOULD REACH 39,188
VPD.
3. TRAFFIC TO THE WEST AND SOUTH OF THE STUDY AREA IS
PROJECTED TO STAY WITHIN PLANNED CAPACITIES THROUGH 2005,
WITH OR WITHOUT THE URBAN VILLAGE PROJECT.
4. LOCAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ALONG HWY. 10 WILL BE SOMEWHAT
WORSE THAN INDICATED BY THE DAILY TRAVEL PROJECTIONS, DUE
TO ITS PROXIMITY TO I -430, PEAK HOUR TRIPS, AND THE GENERAL
LACK OF ARTERIALS CROSSING HWY. 10 WITHIN THE VICINITY OF
THE STUDY.
EXHIBIT 9
POSSIBLE MITIGATING ACTIONS
1. WIDEN, CHANNELIZE AND SIGNALIZE HWY. 10 AT RODNEY-
PARHAM.
2. EXPEDITE PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF WEST
BELTWAY AND TAYLOR LOOP - HINSON ROAD CONNECTION.
3. CONSTRUCT DIRECT ACCESS ROADWAY FROM URBAN VILLAGE TO
RODNEY PARHAM.
January 27, 1987
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. 4 - Master Street Plan Amendment - South Loop
NAME: City of Little Rock
LOCATION: A corridor of a principal
arterial from I- 430/I -30
interchange to 145th Street
REQUEST: To amend the Master Street
Plan to refine the alignment
of the south loop arterial
STAFF REPORT:
The Public Works Department retained the consulting firm of
Mannes, Castin, and McGetrick to complete a planning and
preliminary engineering report for the South Loop Bypass.
The study was commissioned to (1) select roadway design, (2)
propose alternative alignments, (3) select the best
alignment, (4) provide preliminary cost estimates for
right -of -way acquisition and road construction, (5) provide
preliminary engineering plans and profiles, and (6) develop
a strategy for planning implementation and phasing of the
project.
The report has been completed and is being reviewed by the
staff. The consultant has identified the preferred
alignment as a result of public hearings and numerous
meetings.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
To amend the Master Street Plan to include the South Loop
Bypass study dated December 1986. The study will be used as
a guide by the City for the development of the South Loop
Arterial in years to come.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (1- 27 -87)
Don McChesney outlined the South Loop study, noting that the
report contained design standards and represented a
refinement of the previous approvals of the South Loop
alignment. Susan Leatherwood, a resident of the area,
spoke neither for nor against. She expressed concern about
cars near her bedroom window, possible errors in the study,
January 27, 1987
PLANNING HEARING
Item No. 4 - Continued
and the existence of stop lights. She asked that houses be
located 500 feet away from the arterial and that the
alignment be kept out of the floodplain. Don McChesney
indicated that the alignment was not etched in the stone and
that a detailed route alignment would be provided at a later
date. He also indicated that he would work with her to
resolve the concerns expressed.
The Commission discussed the role of developers in paying
for the road, control of development in the right -of -way
through the platting and water connection processes, payment
of compensation if a person accidentally built a building in
the right -of -way, and the specificity of the Master Street
Plan. After discussion, David Jones moved that the request
be approved. The motion was seconded by Jerilyn Nicholson
and passed by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, 1 abstention
(Massie), and 4 absent.
January 27, 1987
There being no further business before the Planning Commission,
the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Chairman Secretary
Date