Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4411-C ApplicationSeptember 7, 2004 To: Little Rock Plan Commission From: Jim Lake Pleasant Valley Property Owners' Association Board of Directors Re: Pleasant Ridge Town Center Project (Schickel development project) This memo summarizes the points of objection to the project which 1 expressed orally to the Commission at its hearing August 26, 2004. 1) Traffic Traffic is projected to increase 30% in the Rodney Parham corridor. The adverse impacts to P. V. include: • Congestion and noise on residential streets • Greater traffic likely will lead to Rodney Parham becoming 4 lanes -- opposed by P. V. as shown in PV's new neighborhood master plan .!m Safety— more traffic imperils children and seniors particularly ■ Vandalism and litter — will increase, especially as drivers leave the shopping parking lots in the evenings and travel through P. V. side streets; P. V. is presently working to reduce vandalism and more traffic will aggravate the problem - • Increased response time for fire and medical emergency vehicles will result from increased traffic in the Highway 10 Rodney Parham area • New traffic pattern on side streets — Doral, Fairway, and Valley Club will become driving routes as drivers try to bypass gridlock on Rodney Parham and Pleasant Forrest Drive 2) Commercial Creep A shopping center and the traffic it generates invite further commercial development, particularly along the east side of Rodney Parham near by the traffic signal at Rodney Parham and Pleasant Forrest Drive. Such undesirable development would be adjacent to P. V. 3) Buffers and Protections Destroyed Grading down of the Summit Road hill removes natural buffer between a shopping area and residential property. At one time, 16 variances of one type or another were requested by the developer. This results in the protective features of zoning laws and ordinances, being removed or diminished, thus harming residential areas. The removal of buffers and protections really means the proposed project is not suitable for the site — it is too big and dense. 4) Commercial Encroachment The Pleasant Valley, Pleasant Forrest area is long standing residential/office. A commercial project coming in after the fact breaks good faith with hundreds of residential property owners. The interests of the many residents should prevail over the commercial interests of the few. 5) No Proven Demand There is no demand for the project from a majority of residents in neighborhoods west on highway 10 nor from residents in Pleasant Forrest, Cedar Ridge, Pleasant Valley, Walton Heights, Colony West, Robinhood, the Heights or Hillcrest. 6) Specific Requests For Variances Requests by the developer for waivers and variances allowing a 60 foot hillside cut, and delay in construction when a cut of some kind is made, should be denied.. Thank you.' September 10, 2004 To: Mr. Monte Moore From: Jim Lake Pleasant Valley Property Owners' Association Board of Directors Re: , Pleasant Ridge Town Center Project (Schickel development project) Pleasant Valley, along with several other neighborhoods and property owners, are opposed to development of a proposed shopping Center at Highway 10 and Pleasant Ridge Road. The attached letter sets forth our reasons for opposition. Please note in particular item (6) pertaining to land cuts and construction on cleared land. Theses concerns are crucial. We request your assistance in preventing this development from taking place. 1-1 al s. e Lake Telephone: Home — 225-8747 Office — 907-2000 August 11, 2004 Little Rock Planning Commission Little Rock Department of Planning & Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: Shopping Center Project at Cantrell & Pleasant Ridge, West Little Rock I am a resident of Pleasant Valley subdivision. I oppose and request the Commission deny approval of a shopping center project proposed by Schickel Development Company. This project will add considerable traffic to a prime residential area, Pleasant Valley. The traffic will flow from Rodney Parham and Pleasant Forrest Drive onto several Pleasant Valley side streets ---Fairway, Doral, Valley Club, Rockey Valley and Hidden Valley. This traffic presents a safety issue, as there are many young children in the area. This traffic, part of which will come from shopping center "congregations", will increase "farming" in our neighborhood and will cause more autos being vandalized. Fire protection response time will decrease as an increased traffic flow on Cantrell and Rodney Parham will produce gridlock. The next thing will be a zoning request for waiver so that a gas station could go in at the already congested corner of Pleasant Forrest and Rodney Parham, a location touching Pleasant Valley property. A commercial project depresses the value of prime residential property. The developer's interest must not be permitted to override the interests of about 1,000 property owners. you. M L. Lake August 11, 2004 Little Rock Planning Commission Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Re: Development of new retail project by Pleasant Ridge Development LLC in West Little Rock Dear Commission Members, Please accept this as formal notification that the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association Board of Directors has voted to'actively oppose the construction of a new retail shopping project near the intersection of Highway 10 and Pleasant Ridge Road. It was brought to our attention by a nearby neighborhood association that Pleasant Ridge Development LLC was planning on asking the commission for the appropriate zoning changes and variances needed to proceed with this plan. Prior to this time our association had not been formally notified by any party involved. Our association consists of almost 1,000 lots in one of the cities most attractive and historic neighborhoods. We believe our neighborhood is as thriving and active as any in the city, and we will strenuously work to defend the quality of life in our part of Little Rock. The primary reasons for our objections are as follows: • Increased traffic in an area that can barely handle the traffic already moving through the area. This is fundamentally a residential neighborhood that does not need the additional congestion that would undoubtedly come with new retail space. • There are real safety issues involved here as the location of the additional traffic will be in an area that thousands of taxpayers use each day to get to school, work, sporting events, and church. The potential for serious traffic accidents in the areas around the project only increases. Growth in Little Rock in recent years has already decreased the documented response time of the fire department to certain areas. There is little doubt that the installation of a major retail project in the heart of Pleasant Valley will further decrease the response time of emergency vehicles. There has been no expressed demand by any of the area neighborhood associations for any new retail space in this area. At considerable effort and expense the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association has undertaken an effort to develop a comprehensive long range plan for the area. At a time when many Little Rock neighborhoods have made no effort whatsoever to control their own destiny, our association has aggressively moved to be involved in what happens here, so a high quality of life can be maintained for many years to come. To have a huge retail project tossed carelessly onto this nearby property is to simply ignore the wishes of a committed group of taxpayers. • This proposed use of this land is not consistent with Little Rock's Future Land Use Plan or with current zoning ordinances. We care deeply about our neighborhood and we strongly believe that an ongoing, spirited debate about the future of Pleasant Valley is a healthy thing for all of us. Please rest assured that we will be vocal in our opposition to this project. Please keep us informed of all meetings and actions involving this matter. The office phone number for the Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association is 225- 0481. Our fax number is 225-8800. Sincerely, The Pleasant Valley Property Owners Association Board of Directors CC: Little Rock City Board Members Creating solutions, changing lives. 60 Years of Service Helping people with disabilities gain greater independence. Board of Directors Officers Governor Mike Huckabee Honorary Chairman November 2, 2004 A. Wyckliff Nisbet, Jr. Chairman of the Board J.D. Simpson, III City of Little Rock Board of Directors Treasurer c/o Tony Bozynski Rogers Cockrill Department of Planning and Development Secretary 723 West Markham Street Members Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Richard E. Bell Francis L. Browning Timothy P. Farrell Cathy Foraker Thomas Kennedy Kenneth L. Kerr Robert C. Magee Michael H. Means John E. Miller E. Wilson Moore, III Micheal D. Munson Walter S. Nunnelly, III Dr. Robert A. Porter, Jr. H. Terry Rasco, FAIA Lisenne Rockefeller Franklin Shirrell Robert L. Shoptaw Gus M. Vratsinas George W. Wilkerson Sharon Moone-Jochums President and CEO Easter Seals Arkansas 3920 Woodland Heights Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72212-2495 501-227-3600 phone 877-533-3600 toll free 501-227-3686 tdd 501-227-3601 fax mail@ar.easter-seals.org www.ar.easter-seals.org Dear Board of Directors: We were pleased that the Planning Commission voted to eliminate the south entrance of the Pleasant Ridge Development. We hope you each agree with that decision. We would request that, if the development later submits a plan change to create a south entrance off of Woodland Heights Road, that Easter Seals would be notified. We appreciate your consideration of our request. Sincerely, Sharon Moone-Jochums President and CEO rector Phillips Morse 800 Prospect Building, 1101 North University Little Rock, Arkansas Mail Address: P.O. Box 7300, Little Rock, Arkansas 72217 (501) 664-7807 Fax (501) 664-0104 October 7, 2004 Planning Commission Members City of Little Rock Via Fax #399-3435 RE: Pleasant Ridge Town Center Ladies & Gentlemen: Arkansas Realtors Association Certified Commercial -Investment Member (Individual Member) Commercial -Investment Real Estate Institute Institute of Real Estate Management International Council of Shopping Centers Little Rock Realtors Association National Association of Realtors Realtors National Marketing Institute Society of Industrial and Office Realtors (Individual Member) Womens Council of Realtors This letter represents the position of the Board of Directors of Easter Seals Arkansas. Easter Seals has a campus adjacent on the south to the proposed Pleasant Ridge Town Center development. We oppose the south entrance/exit of the center on Woodland Heights Road. The south access will concentrate the shopping center's traffic at Easter Seals campus. When we left last month's Planning Commission meeting, we were comfortable with the site development, having been told that the south access had been withdrawn from the site plan. I personally followed this up by visiting with Planning Staff approximately one week (or less) ago. At that time, I was told that the site plan had not changed and that there was no planned access directly onto Woodland Heights Road. Late yesterday afternoon, we learned that Planning Staff was recommending that this access be added back to the site plan. We strongly oppose a Woodland Heights entrance and exit into the shopping center. Woodland Heights Road presently services an extensive residential neighborhood, several office buildings, a Montessori school, a church and a large church school in addition to the Easter Seals campus. It should not carry the additional traffic from a 300,000 square foot shopping center. Easter Seals feels the south access poses not only a traffic safety threat, but also a security problem to its campus. Easter Seals campus employs approximately 400 people ... 300 of whom are present during an average day. But more importantly, on any given day it serves 85 adults with disabilities, 86 pre- school children, 35 outpatients, 10 adult residents and 20 children in its after-school program. In addition, 40 children with disabilities actually reside at the campus while they are in various rehabilitation programs. These children and adults add up to a total of approximately 275 clients daily, and almost all of them have physical or developmental disabilities, or a combination of both. Added to the daily workforce, Easter Seals generates approximately 450 trips daily on Woodland Heights Road. Woodland Heights and its intersection with Rodney Parham and Pleasant Forest cannot handle the additional traffic of a shopping center. This three-way, offset intersection is a confusing bottleneck with its present traffic load. Additional traffic will be a monumental problem. Easter Seals picked its campus site because it was out of mainstream traffic; and because its location was convenient, but "out-of-the-way" for reasons of security for the disabled adults and children it serves. Mr. Schickle told me on several occasions that he prefers this south access, but that is not required. Just this morning he stated that his anchor store, Parisian, does not require the access and really doesn't feel it affects them one way or another. Please, if this access is not critical to this development, do not recommend or require it. Please do just the opposite... strike it from the site plan and require that it not be constructed. Sincerely, 4-,ez,4� L. Burnett for Easters Seals Arkansas JLB/bd �� � 3 10, 1r - PLEASE READ THIS ! We have been given a heads up by another area neighborhood association that we need to be paying attention to a very large proposal to rezone the area between Fairview Road and Woodland Heights from Suburban Office to Commercial. The proposal is for an approximately 270,000 square foot shopping complex on that piece of land. The Pleasant Forest Property Owners Association says 30010 of the traffic coming and going to the new project is expected to use a rear entrance that will exit onto Woodland Heights across from the Fairview Kennels and Easter Seals (that_is_near. the Rodney Parham/ Pleasant Forest intensection -near- Christ The King Church). That association says the project could add 200 to 300 cars per hour to the traffic flow in that area during peak use periods. A hearing on this matter is scheduled for the LR Planning Commission at 4:00 p.m. on -August 26, 2004 at Little Rock City Hall. If you have strong feelings about this project, that meeting is the time and place to voice them. For more information call Craig Williams of the Pleasant Forest Property Owner's Association at 224-6651. The PVPOA Board has resolved to oppose this development for the reasons of noise, pollution, Increased traffic, and congestion among other things. The board is urging you to get involved and make your opposition to this intrusive plan known. It is also very important that you take the time to show up at the August 261h meeting and let the planning commission know that you have strong feelings in opposing this plan 1 PV needs to get motivated on this issuel Please write letters -=and contact your board members ..do whatever you can to help. Please get involved. Avoid the Peakl Central Arkansas Water asks that you run sprinklers at off peak hours during the hot summer Little 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 9`h 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 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 11, 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, 0 no, 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. 2 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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: 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 3 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 4 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 C Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 0 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 7 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 8 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 GI Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 10 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 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 11 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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 B1ancoMaria 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 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 12 Little Rock Board of Directors Reconvened Meeting November 9, 2004 5:00 PM 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: APPROVE: Nancy Wood, City Clerk 13 Jim Dailey, Mayor zee,4e9-5e-75 11/22/2884 81:53:21 PM Filed 8 Recorded in n official Records of c CARoIlHSTRLEY PULASKI COUNTY c�'. �► CIRCUIT/COUNTY CLERK l c ORDINANCE NO. 19,233Fees f29.00 3 'SAN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING 4 DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED 5 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED PLEASANT RIDGE REVISED 6 LONG -FORM PCD (Z -4411-D) LOCATED SOUTH OF CANTRELL 7 ROAD, EAST OF PLEASANT RIDGE ROAD, IN THE CITY OF 8 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL 9 ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR 10 OTHER PURPOSES. 11 12 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF 13 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. 14 Section 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property 15 be changed from R-2, 0-3 and PCD to Revised PCD: 16 Lot 1 Peasant Ridge Square, an addition to the City of Little Rock, 17 Arkansas as recorded in PIat Book G, Page 321 Records of Pulaski County, 18 Arkansas and Part of Plots B, C, D, E, I, L K and L, Woodland Heights 19 Subdivision, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas including part of 20 Summit Street, more particularly described as: Beginning at the southeast 21 corner of said Lot 1, Pleasant Ridge Square, said corner being also the 22 southwest corner of Lot 3, said Pleasant Ridge Square; thence S78°30'49"E 23 along the south line of said Lot 3, 291.70 feet to the southeast corner 24 thereof, lying on the west right-of-way line of Woodland Road; thence 25 S27°04'56"W along said west right-of-way line 110.01 feet to a point on the 26 north right-of-way line, of Summit Street; thence N86°49'01"W along said 27 north right-of-way line, 216.65 feet; thence S03°10'59"W, 38.85 feet; thence [PAGE 1 OF 5] I S01047'59"W, 219.10 feet; thence N85°56'17"W, 110.00 feet to a point on 2 the west line of said Plot L; thence N0104754E along said west line, 68.71 3 feet; thence N84°49'42"W, 324.44 feet to a point on the east line of said Plot 4 J; thence S03°29'58"W along said east line, 150.94 feet; thence S03°19'34"W 5 continuing along said east line, 284.74 feet to the southeast corner of said 6 Plot J; thence N83°34'51"W along the south line of said Plot J, being also 7 the north right-of-way line of Woodland Heights Road 141.30 feet to the 8 southeast corner of Lot 2 Fairview Park, an addition to the City of Little 9 Rock, Arkansas; thence NO2011'43"E along the east line of said Lot 2, 10 310.65 feet to the northeast corner thereof; thence N87038'35"W along the 11 north line of said Lot 2, 144.79 feet to the northwest corner thereof, lying 12 on the east line of Lot 1, said Fairview Park, thence N01°43'25"E along 13 said east line, 69.76 feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot 1; thence 14 N87°20'53:'W along the north line of said Lot 1, 316.34 feet to a point on 15 the east right-of-way line of Fairview Road, being also the west line of Plot 16 I, said Woodland Heights Subdivision; thence N01°52'04"E along said 17 East right-of-way line, 364.84 feet to the northwest corner of said Plot I; 18 thence N04°23'49"W, 39.13 feet to the southwest comer of said Plot E, 19 Woodland Heights Subdivision; thence northerly along the west line of 20 Plot E, being also the east right-of-way line of Fairview Road the following 21 (1) NO2°34'42"E, 150.0 feet; (2) N01°43'49"E, 74.18 feet and (3) 22 NO2023'52"E, 75.05 feet; thence S72°26'55"E, 40.07 feet to a point on the 23 south line of said Lot 1, Pleasant Ridge Square; thence easterly along the 24 south line of said Lot 1 the following (1) S72°01'27"E, 125.29 feet (2) 25 S02°26'07"W, 75.03 feet (3) S67°01'45"E, 150.62 feet; (4) S52°22'16"E, 83.49 26 feet (5) S01°16'06"W, 34.08 feet; (6) S75°17'07"E, 298.29 feet (7) [PAGE 2 OF 5] I S81059'38"E, 178.30 feet (8) S86040'51"E, 140.01 feet and (9) S78°30'49"E, 2 50.01 feet to the point of beginning, containing 26.9977 acres more or less. 3 Section 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as 4 recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. 5 Section 3: The approval of the Pleasant Ridge Revised Long -form PCD is subject 6 to the following conditions: 7 • Compliance with the approved site plan and development plan. 8 ■ There is to be no signage on the rear of the proposed buildings. 9 • The rear of the buildings are to include architectural features to break the 10 massing of the buildings from the adjacent roadways. 11 ■ The service hours be limited to the hours of dumpster service or from 7:00 am to 12 6:00 pm. 13 ■ The applicant provides gates to eliminate unnecessary traffic/activities near the 14 southwest portion of the site. The gates should be placed near the southeast 15 corner of proposed Building 7 and the western edge of proposed Building 11. 16 • Designs of the wall at the southwest corner of the site as an architectural feature, 17 not ending abruptly, and install columns within the wall to add visual interest. 18 The dumpster enclosures be designed to be an architectural component of the 19 development and constructed of a building material similar to the building 20 materials of the shopping center. 21 The applicant provide screening of the service bay located on the northern face of 22 proposed Building 1 adequate to screen the area from Cantrell Road and 23 additional plantings along the landscape island on the southern perimeter of 24 proposed Lots 1 and 2 at two times the normal plantings, with both trees and 25 shrubs. [PAGE 3 OF 5] I • A berm is placed adjacent to Cantrell Road and the landscape area be planted at 2 one and one half times the normal ordinance requirement to off -set the reduced 3 landscape area. 4 + The interior landscaped islands shall be increased to meet the minimum 5 Landscape Ordinance requirement. 6 • Repair of any damage to adjoining streets caused by construction of any part of 7 the development shall be the sole responsibility of the developer. 8 ■ No rear entrance/access will be installed without Board of Directors action. 9 ■ The developer will provide funding in the amount of $70,000 to assist the City 10 with traffic calming devices for Pleasant Forest. 11 . No grading permit will be issued for Lot 1 until a building permit for all the 12 buildings located on Lot 1 is permitted for construction. 13 Section 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Pleasant 14 Ridge Revised Long -form PCD is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval 15 within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of 16 Ordinances. 17 Section 5. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances 18 of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby 19 amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change 20 provided for in Section 1 hereof. 21 Section 6. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until 22 the final approval of the plan. 23 Section 7. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, 24 sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid 25 or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining 26 portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so [PAGE 4 OF 5] I declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the 2 ordinance. 3 Section 8. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same 4 that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the 5 extent of such inconsistency. 6 7 PASSED: November 9, 2004 8 9 ATTEST: 10 11 12 tcy Wo , City Clerk 13 14 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: 15 16 17 Thomas M. Carpenter, City kttomey 18 19 20 // 21 // 22 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 29 // [PAGE 5 OF 5] APPROVED: ,L � .�� J' alley, Mayor .y h,. '•%S� w �4 � k- `fir '+'r-� , PR 2 f �t�ttL�"'•�? l'r��7,� R2 03 R2 ; ,• v 7 PR `w.7 PDO } ` G� C2 , RZ 03 ti 0 Os La R2 �' p A rt %•yam -•`7r' �i r �,7 - . c: uk IQi..� 'r, O3 - RIO - , :r � 02 711 • :�•_ ; � � 21j � ,' _ •`•�sc�ri:�s�tr*:• � ..rte. Y r ^: �l���j�cw.•r,�.:x71� � �'���[�i7: YL3 47 � � a' �a� �.e ^-.-.. �.�ria=�C? �=-�C7al.i "� rq � _ �'zQG�i' �!� 6�� �•� AREA ZONING Case: Z -4411-D Location.- SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CANTRELL ROAD AND PLEASANT VALLEY RIDGE ROAD Ward: 4 PD: 1 0 250 500 1,000 Feet CT.- 42.09 TRS: T2NR13W21 Mci nity Map LAND USE Case: Z -4411-D Location: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CANTRELL ROAD AND PLEASANT VALLEY RIDGE ROAD Ward: 4 PD: 1 0 250 500 1,000 Feet CT: 42.09 TRS: T2NR13 vWz,1 --m ---------------------- L --.._ -oma Dana a+nt °0'W FAIRW97 ROAD TRST2NR13W21 PLEASANT RIDGE REVISED CT 42.09 LONG - FORM PCD PD 1 Z -4411-D SOUTHEAST CORNER OF CANTRELL ROAD NORTH AND PLEASANT RIDGE ROAD .00