HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4807-G Application 3Page 1 of 2
Bozynski, Tony
From: Carpenter, Tom
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 1:19 PM
To: 'Bill Spivey'; Richard Downing
Cc: Moore, Bruce; Bozynski, Tony; Mann, Bill; Dailey, Jim; James, Donna; Carney, Dana; Haralson,
Steve; Henry, Bill; dsrobertson@direcway.com; kemp.whisenhunt@sbcglobal.net
Subject: RE: Status
Importance: High
Dear Dick and Group,
These are my comments:
1 . The 55,000 foot minimum comes from the records that I was presented; it seems
substantial to me and may cause this particular development to go back to the
Planning Commission; if so, then I suspect the Board would send all back. However,
if the imposition of that condition was erroneous in the information provided to me,
then I have no real problem with its deletion. SINCE THERE ARE similar requirements
in other ordinances, though, I would like the answer to this question.
2. As to (d)(1 )(A) on page 5, 1 have not problem with the changes in the first sentence.
However, I think that the second sentence starting "The updated traffic study ..." is
inappropriate, and I would include the language at the end that has been deleted. In
fact, the language at the end is probably the most crucial in terms of what Directors
Keck, Kumpuris and Wyrick, were concerned about.
3. As to the amendment to (C) on page 6, 1 basically accept these changes EXCEPT for
the deletion of "at the time of the application for final plan approval." As noted on
Sunday, that could be four. different times on each of the ordinances, and I think
that time frame has to be consistently established.
4. As to Section 3, THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. This is a conceptual PCD and there has
been no preliminary plan approved. The ordinance, therefore, should not say so.
5. As to Section 1 , I defer to Tony and Donna on that one. The language was taken
straight from their ordinance.
Tom
6/27/2006
Page 2 of 2
Thomas M. Carpenter
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
500 West Markham, Ste. 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(T)(501) 371-6875
(F) (501) 371-4675
(M) (501) 993-1052
6/27/2006
Page 1 of 2
Bozynski, Tony
From: Richard Downing [rcdowning@downing-law.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:32 AM
To: Carpenter, Tom
Cc: jspivey@wlj.com; Moore, Bruce; Bozynski, Tony; Mann, Bill; Dailey, Jim; James, Donna; Carney,
Dana; Haralson, Steve; Henry, Bill; dsrobertson@direcway.com; kemp.whisenhunt@sbcglobal.net
Subject: RE: Status
Tom—attached is our proposed changes to your draft ordinance. It is a redlined
version. If it meets with everyone's approval as to form, we will provide a clean
copy. You will note I am sending copies to the same persons you did yesterday
afternoon—except I added my client.
As to .may proposed revisions, the revised language to Section 2 (c ) 1 & 2 were
discussed with Donna and Tony and are consistent with other staged PLDs. As to
revisions to Section 2 (d)(1)(A), the revised language was provided to Ernie Peters
for his comment, our language reflects his input. The proposed language contains a
definition, his report (remember our Sunday discussion regarding a "base" and
addendum, and inserts our understanding of the board's request regarding
assumptions. In addition, our revised Section 2 (d)(1)(C) contains a definition
of "acceptable service". It is the Institute's definition. This definition, as I
understand it, has been adopted by the city. The remainder is an attempt to
clarify the Whisenhunt responsibilities and make minor language changes.
DD
Richard C. Downing
Attorney at Law
425 W. Capitol, Suite 3310
Little Rock, Ark. 72201
501-372-2066
501-376-6420(fax)
NOTICE: This message, including attachments, if any, contains confidential information that may be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use
or disseminate this message or any attachments to it. If you have received this message in error, please
immediately notify us by return e-mail or fax or by telephone and delete or destroy this message. Thank you.
From: Carpenter, Tom[mailto:TCarpenter@littlerock.org]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:52 PM
To: Richard Downing
Cc: jspivey@wlj.com; Moore, Bruce; Bozynski, Tony; Mann, Bill; Dailey, Jim; James, Donna; Carney, Dana;
Haralson, Steve; Henry, Bill
Subject: RE: Status
Importance: High
6/27/2006
Page 2 of 2
Attached is the redlined and the clean copy of the ordinance for Z -5617-A - the one
that we discussed yesterday. These are the changes that will be included in the other
two major ordinances. Please let me know ASAP if there are further changes from what
was agreed upon that anyone catches. I suspect that this draft is the one (three) that will
be sent to the Board of Directors this afternoon. But, if there are any minor changes for
tomorrow night, they can be made and we can provide them to the Board at that time.
P.S. Dick - I did not find the email addresses for Mr. Whisenhunt and Mr. Robertson.
Would you please forward copies to them?
Tom
Thomas M. Carpenter
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
500 West Markham, Ste. 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(T)(501) 371-6875
(F) (501) 371-4675
(M) (501) 993-1052
6/27/2006
Pagel of 3
Bozynski, Tony
From
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Bill Spivey Uspivey@wlj.com]
Tuesday, June 27, 2006 12:48 PM
Richard Downing; Carpenter, Tom
Moore, Bruce; Bozynski, Tony; Mann, Bill; Dailey, Jim; James, Donna; Carney, Dana; Haralson,
Steve; Henry, Bill; dsrobertson@direcway.com; kemp.whisenhunt@sbcglobal.net
Subject: RE: Status
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I apologize for the delay in responding to Dick's suggested revisions, but I did not receive a
copy marked to show changes, so there may be other questions than these I am about to
present:
First, in Section 2 (a), subpart (5) which appeared in earlier drafts of this ordinance has
disappeared from the current propgsed draft. Subpart 5 reads as follows:
(5) The minimum office area shall be fifty-five thousand (55,000) square feet;
This change isn't mentioned in Dick's covering email and I wondered if its omission was an
oversight since it would appear to be somewhat significant.
Second, in Section 2 (c) (1) and (2) approval of proposed building designs will be approved by
the Subdivision Committee and the Planning Department, and not by the Planning
Commission and Little Rock Board of Directors, as proposed in Mr. Carpenter's draft
ordinance. Is this the appropriate approval path?
Finally, Section 3 of Tom's draft ordinance provides that the "preliminary site development
plan, or plat, for this development, shall be subject to approval by the Little Rock Planning
Commission." Dick's redraft has been modified to provide that the"preliminary site
development plan, or plat, for this development, recommended by the Little Rock Planning
Commission is hereby approved." It was my understanding that this is a "conceptual" planned
development and that no preliminary site development plan or plat, other than the allocation of
development percentages, exists. Is this correct? What is actually being approved and what
is the import of this suggested change?
If I have other questions, I'll send them to everyone.
Thanks.
Bill Spivey
-----Original Message -----
From: Richard Downing [mailto:rcdowning@downing-law.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 11:32 AM
To: Carpenter, Tom
Cc: Bill Spivey; Moore, Bruce; Bozynski, Tony; Mann, Bill; Dailey, Jim; James, Donna; Carney, Dana;
Haralson, Steve; Henry, Bill; dsrobertson@direcway.com; kemp.whisenhunt@sbcglobal.net
Subject: RE: Status s
6/27/2006
Page 2 of 3
Tom—attached is our proposed changes to your draft ordinance. It is a
redlined version. If it meets with everyone's approval as to form, we will
provide a clean copy. You will note I am sending copies to the same persons
you did yesterday afternoon—except I added my client.
As to my proposed revisions, the revised language to Section 2 (c ) 1 & 2
were discussed with Donna and Tony and are consistent with other staged
PCDs. As to revisions to Section 2 (d)(1)(A), the revised language was
provided to Ernie Peters for his comment, our language reflects his input.
The proposed language contains a definition, his report (remember our Sunday
discussion regarding a "base" and addendum, and inserts our understanding of
the board's request regarding assumptions. In addition, our revised Section
2 (d)(1)(C) contains a definition of "acceptable service". It is the
Institute's definition. This definition, as I understand it, has been adopted
by the city. The remainder is an attempt to clarify the Whisenhunt
responsibilities and make minor language changes.
DD
Richard C. Downing
Attorney at Law
425 W. Capitol, Suite 3310
Little Rock, Ark. 72201
501-372-2066
501-376-6420 (fax)
NOTICE: This message, including attachments, if any, contains confidential information that may be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy,
copy, use or disseminate this message or any attachments to it. If you have received this message in error,
please immediately notify us by return e-mail or fax or by telephone and delete or destroy this message.
Thank you.
From: Carpenter, Tom[mailto:TCarpenter@littlerock.org]
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:52 PM
To: Richard Downing
Cc: jspivey@wlj.com; Moore, Bruce; Bozynski, Tony; Mann, Bill; Dailey, Jim; James, Donna; Carney, Dana;
Haralson, Steve; Henry, Bill
Subject: RE: Status
Importance: High
Attached is the redlined and the clean copy of the ordinance for Z -5617-A - the
one that we discussed yesterday. These are the changes that will be included in the
other two major ordinances. Please let me know ASAP if there are further changes
from what was agreed upon that anyone catches. I suspect that this draft is the one
(three) that will be sent to the Board of Directors this afternoon. But, if there are
any minor changes for tomorrow night, they can be made and we can provide them
to the Board at that time.
6/27/2006
Page 3 of 3
Tom
P.S. Dick - I did not find the email addresses for Mr. Whisenhunt and Mr. Robertson.
Would you please forward copies to them?
Tom
Thomas M. Carpenter
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
500 West Markham, Ste. 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(T)(501) 371-6875
(F) (501) 371-4675
(M) (501) 993-1052
6/27/2006
EDWARD L. WRIGHT
(1903-1977)
ROBERT S. LINDSEY
(1913-1991)
ALSTON JENNINGS
(1917-2004)
JOHN G. LILE
GORDON S. RATHER. 1R.
MARTIN G. GILBERT
ROGER A. GLASGOW
ALST O N JENNINGS, IR.
JOHN R. TISDALE
JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111
LEE J. MULDROW
N.M. NORTON
CHARLES C. PRICE I
CHARLES T.COLEMAN
JAMES 1. GLOVER
EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR.
GREGORY T. JONES2
BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN 3
WALTER McSPADDEN
JOHN D. DAVIS
JUDY SIMMONS HENRY
KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER
RAY F. COX, JR.8
TROY A. PRICE
PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS
KATHRYN A. PRYOR
J. MARK DAVIS 3
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699
(501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442
903 NORTH 47TH STREET, SUITE 101
ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756
(4 79) 986-0888 FAX 1479) 986-8932
—.1j.—to
OF COUNSEL
RONALD A. MAY
ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR.
BRUCE R. LINDSEY 2
JAMES R. VAN DOVER
R. SCOTT SUMMERS 7
Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310
jspivey®w)j.com
Reply to Lirlle Rock Office
June 20, 2006
The Honorable Vice Mayor Barbara Graves
Members of the Board of Directors
City of Little Rock
City Hall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: The future of Chenal Valley and West Little Rock
Ladies and Gentlemen:
CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK 4
JERRY J. SALLINGS
WILLIAM STUART JACKSON
MICHAEL D*BARNES
STEPHEN R. LANCASTER
JUDY ROBINSON WILBER
KYLE R. WILSON
C. TAD BO HANNON 3
J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY 8
M. SEAN HATCH
LAND REW
.ANDREW VINES
JUSTIN T. ALLEN
MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING S
SCOTT ANDREW IRBY
PATRICK D. WILSON
REGINA A. YOUNG
BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD
PAUL D. MORRIS
EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG
EVA ,C'MADISON 6
DAWN D. JACKSON
CAL EY
B. VO
COLIN R. JORGENSEN
GARY D. MARTS, 1R.
ERIC BERGER
MARK N. OHRENBERGER
Also licensed to Practice in
I Michigan
2 District of Cnlambla
3 Teras
4 Ne a" Ya rk
S Norih Carolina
6 Oklcho)na and Temressee
7 Kentucky
8 Licensed In practice before the United
States Parent and Tradenmrk Office
On behalf of Deltic Timber Corporation ("Deltic"), the Chenal Valley Municipal
Property Owners Multipurpose Improvement District No. 4 of the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas ("District 4"), and Chenal Valley Municipal Property Owners Multipurpose
Improvement District No. 10 of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas ( "District 10"), we
appreciate the opportunity to present a number of concerns with respect to certain proposed
land use changes and rezoning requests which will be before the Board on the evening of
June 20, 2006 (the "conceptual planned developments").
From an historical point of view, Deltic, District 4, District 10 and a number of other
interested property owners and improvement districts, have for over twenty years worked
closely with the City of Little Rock and the City's Planning and Public Works Departments to
carefully and meticulously plan for the development of what is now commonly referred to as
"Chenal Valley." The Master Plan for Chenal Valley has included not only the platting of
various neighborhoods but also the reservation of property for fire stations and other public
facilities, as well as the design, development, financing and construction of major additions to
the City's Master Street Plan. Notably, Deltic and the -City were major participants in the
financing and construction of Chenal Parkway in the late 1980s. Ten years ago, Deltic
returned to the City and, in partnership with the City, designed, developed, financed and
644626-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
June 20, 2006
Page 2
constructed the upper half of Rahling Road, then known to many as the "Outer Loop. " Most
recently, Deltic, again in partnership with the City, sponsored the creation of District 10 which
is currently providing financing for the development of the lower half of Rahling Road from
Chenal Parkway to Kanis Road. The construction of these roadways has facilitated the further
residential and commercial development of West Little Rock and has added additional tax base,
sales tax revenues and valuable infrastructure benefiting the City and its inhabitants.
Throughout its history of cooperation with the City, Deltic has always endeavored to
meet the City's demands with respect to both the quality and capacity of all development within
the Master Plan. At times, Deltic or the Districts have agreed to build improvements which
exceeded the bare legal requirements of City ordinances and regulations. In such instances,
Deltic and the Districts have undertaken the payment of the additional costs of these public
improvements at great savings to the City. Wherever these challenges have arisen, the City
has not been reluctant to request and Deltic has, as a rule, generally been inclined to modify its
plans to serve the best interests of all parties. To be certain, this process has been one of
negotiation, cooperation and compromise, however, it has resulted in the development of well-
maintained residential neighborhoods, first-class multifamily facilities and commercial facilities
which boast of broad setbacks and heavily landscaped perimeters. Chenal Parkway and
Rahling Road are themselves scenic byways, the character of which has been protected and
preserved from their respective inceptions. Prior Boards of Directors championed the
establishment of Chenal Parkway as a scenic corridor and Deltic and other major landowners
have worked closely with the City and its staff, often resisting the temptation toward more
intense development, to preserve the development ideals laid down over twenty-five years ago.
Recently the City was presented with the opportunity to revisit a number of earlier
zoning decisions and to reclassify the remainder of what has long been known as the
Shackleford Dairy Farm for much more intense commercial and office development. Virtually
all of the Shackleford Dairy Farm came into the City as residential property but portions have
been redesignated as multifamily, office, neighborhood commercial, and with the creation of
the Dairyland Long Form PCD in 1997, approximately 200,000 square feet of commercial
property was approved for the development of a Kroger grocery store and related
developments and outlying parcels. Approximately 125,000 square feet and two out parcels of
the Dairyland PCD remain underdeveloped ten years later.
The "conceptual" planned developments before you tonight will add approximately
556,500 square feet of commercial and 377,500 square feet of office space to the inventory of
undeveloped property in Chenal Valley. This translates into over 4,700 parking spaces at full
development. By comparison, the Pleasant Ridge Shopping area on Highway 10, which was
approved pursuant to a detailed development plan, included a mere 300,000 square feet. The
one time reclassification of this amount of property may not be unprecedented, but what is
644626-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
June 20, 2006
Page 3
unprecedented is the dramatic lack of details and lack of compliance with the City's own
zoning code. It is unclear how these proposals whisked their way through the planning process
so quickly and with so little scrutiny having been given to what will most certainly be a
dramatic adverse impact upon traffic all along Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road and the
quality of life in Chenal Valley.
A cursory review of the three "conceptual" planned development ordinances reveals a
great many deficiencies and departures from the City's customary detailed PCD approval
process. Exhibit "A" to this letter outlines the most obvious of these deficiencies, although we
readily acknowledge that there has been an effort by the City's staff to "cure" many of these in
the days since Planning Commission approval on May 25. The fact remains that much
important information was not available to or considered by the Planning Commission before
its approval of these requests and remains unavailable to you tonight.
Consideration of the three "conceptual" planned developments has been further
complicated by the applicant having linked its request to that of Fellowship Bible Church's
request for a conditional use permit on approximately fifty-five acres of the Dairy Farm.
Although Deltic has no objection whatsoever and welcomes Fellowship Bible Church to Chenal
Valley, we do not understand why both Fellowship Bible Church and the applicant insist upon
approval of the "conceptual" planned developments being a precondition to advancement of the
Church's development plans. We are in sympathy with the Church's need to move
expeditiously toward completion of its new facilities. However, we do not believe that the
Church's schedule alone is sufficient reason for rushing to approve the three "conceptual"
planned developments if approval will result in significant adverse impacts upon the greater
Chenal Valley area. The residents and property owners who currently reside and work in
Chenal Valley deserve to have these issues fully studied, reviewed and discussed prior to the
City making any final decisions with respect to these rezonings. To this end, Deltic is
prepared to defer any further requests for rezoning and land use changes and to participate in
an area -wide review and evaluation of development impacts upon traffic capacity and other
issues on Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road.
It is important to stress that if the levels of service projected by the most recent traffic
study presented to and by the City Planning and Public Works Staffs are accurate, that in time
Chenal Parkway will experience significant congestion, long delays and intersections which
become choke points for traffic along the full length of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road.
These developments will undoubtably result in the diversion of traffic through near
neighborhoods along Loyola Drive in St. Charles, Wellington Hills in Wellington, Chenal
Valley Drive in Chenal Valley, Pebble Beach in Pebble Beach and near neighborhoods, and
Hinson Road in Pleasant Valley, to name a few. It is also conceivable that with growth and
development along Chenal Parkway, significant amounts of traffic will be further diverted to
644626-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
June 20, 2006
Page 4
Highway 10 making traffic conditions there even worse than are currently experienced by
those who travel the Highway 10 corridor every day. No one wants to see Chenal Valley
become an area of the City to be avoided because of impassable intersections and long lines of
idling automobiles.
On behalf of Deltic, the Districts and many of the residents of Chenal Valley, we
respectfully ask that the City Board do the following:
1. Stop. Defer further action on the two proposed land use change
ordinances and the three "conceptual" planned development ordinances to allow for
further research, discussion and planning for the future. Do not make a decision today
which benefits a few in the near term and harms many over time.
2. Apply the same standards of review to the three "conceptual" planned
developments as required in the City Code and as have been applied to similar
rezonings in Chenal Valley and other locations within the City. These standards
include providing the information required by the City zoning code for approval of a
planned commercial or office development including a full and detailed survey,
consideration of flood plain issues, detailed development plats, and complete and
accurate traffic studies.
3. Develop a comprehensive plan for designing, financing and constructing
necessary additions, improvements and enhancements to Chenal Parkway and Rahling
Road and the various intersections along each which serve the many residential
neighborhoods and businesses currently located and to be located along their respective
paths. Make sure that there is a plan and a budget for improvements beyond the
immediate vicinity of the Dairy Farm.
4. That the City in concert with developers and property owners benefited
by rezoning decisions reach an agreement concerning the allocation of costs for such
improvements which will insure that such improvements are made well in advance of
the day when increased traffic renders these roadways impassable.
644626-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
June 20, 2006
Page 5
Your thoughtful and forward looking consideration of these requests is sincerely
appreciated.
Respectfully,
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
PA
William SpiveyIII
Attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation,
District No. 4 and District No. 10
JWS:ndn
644626-v1
EXHIBIT A
Agenda Item 9:
Shackleford Farms Long Form POD Z -4807-F
1. This is described as a "long form," but it is discussed as a "conceptual" POD.
2. This POD application does not include a Site Plan as required by ordinance.
3. Proposed buildings are not shown.
4. Building mass in not specified.
5. Building setback from the adjacent residential development is not shown.
6. Building setback from Wellington Village Drive is not shown.
7. The number of buildings on the site is unknown.
8. Will the site be subdivided?
9. Lot lines are not shown and dimensioned.
10. Lot area is not shown.
11. No parking is shown.
12. The number of parking spaces is not shown.
13. The number of handicap parking spaces is not shown.
14. No drives are shown.
15. Drive width is not shown.
16. Points of ingress and egress from Villages of Wellington Drive are not shown.
17. The number of driveway turnouts is not shown.
18. The plan does not show right turn lanes.
19. The plan does not show left turn lanes.
20. The plan does not show a center median.
21. The plan does not show existing pavement.
22. The plan does not show proposed pavement.
23. The plan does not show areas within the development site to be devoted to
landscaping.
24. The plan does not show existing or proposed fire hydrants and water mains.
25. The plan does not show dimensions along street right-of-way or street right-of-
way width.
26. The Ordinance delegates to the City Staff the authority to negotiate
important components such as the amount of street improvements to be
made by the developer rather than a final plan to be approved by the
Board.
27. The Ordinance is unclear as to whether and under what conditions a
further traffic study may be required by the City.
A-1
Agenda Item 11:
Shackleford Farms Long Form PCD Z -4807-G
1. This is described as a "long form," but it is discussed as a "conceptual" PCD.
2. This PCD application does not include a Site Plan as required by ordinance.
3. Proposed buildings are not shown.
4. Building mass in not specified.
5. Building setback from the adjacent development is not shown.
6. Building setback from Wellington Village Drive and Kirk Road is not shown.
7. The number of buildings on the on the site is unknown.
8. Will the site be subdivided?
9. Lot lines are not shown and dimensioned.
10. Lot area is not shown.
11. No parking is shown.
12. The number of parking spaces is not shown.
13. The number of handicap parking spaces is not shown.
14. No drives are shown.
15. Drive width is not shown.
16. Points of ingress and egress from Villages of Wellington Drive and Kirk Road
are not shown.
17. The number of driveway turnouts is not shown.
18. The plan does not show right tum lanes.
19. The plan does not show left turn lanes.
20. The plan does not show a center median.
21. The plan does not show existing pavement.
22. The plan does not show proposed pavement.
23. The plan does not show areas within the development site to be devoted to
landscaping.
24. The plan does not show existing or proposed fire hydrants and water mains.
25. The plan does not show dimensions along street right-of-way or street right-of-
way width.
26. The Ordinance delegates to the City Staff the authority to negotiate
important components such as the amount of street improvements to be
made by the developer rather than a final plan to be approved by the
Board.
28. The Ordinance is unclear as to whether and under what conditions a
further traffic study may be requested by the City.
645030-vl A-2
Agenda Item 12:
Shackleford Farms Long Form PCD (Z-5617-
1. This is described as a "long form," but it is discussed as a "conceptual" PCD.
2. This PCD application does not include a Site Plan as required by ordinance.
3. Proposed buildings are not shown.
4. Building mass in not specified.
5. Building setbacks and buffers from the adjacent residential use is not shown.
6. Building setbacks from Chenal Parkway, Kanis Road and Kirk Road are not
shown.
7. The number of buildings on the on the site is unknown.
8. Will the site be subdivided?
9. Lot lines are not shown and dimensioned.
10. Lot area is not shown.
11. No parking is shown.
12. The number of parking spaces is not shown.
13. The number of handicap parking spaces is not shown.
14. No drives are shown.
15. Drive width is not shown.
16. Points of ingress and egress from Chenal Parkway, Kanis Road and Kirk Road
are not shown.
17. The number of driveway turnouts is not shown.
18. The plan does not show right turn lanes.
19. The plan does not show left turn lanes.
20. The plan does not show a center median.
21. The plan does not show existing pavement.
22. The plan does not show proposed pavement.
23. The plan does not show areas within the development site to be devoted to
landscaping.
24. The plan does not show existing or proposed fire hydrants and water mains.
25. The plan does not show dimensions along street right-of-way or street right-of-
way width.
26. The plan does not show Rock Creek, floodplain or floodway.
27. The Ordinance delegates to the City Staff the authority to negotiate
important components such as the amount of street improvements to be
made by the developer rather than a final plan to be approved by the
Board.
28. The Ordinance is unclear as to whether and under what conditions a
further traffic study may be requested by the City.
645030-v1 A-3
City of Little Rock
Bruce T. Moore
City Manager
October 3, 2007
City Hall, Room 203
500 W. Markham
little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1427
(501) 371-4510
Fax: (501) 371-4498
www.littlerock.org
citymanager® littlerock.org
Mr. John William Spivey III
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP
200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699
Re: Your letter dated August 13, 2007
Dear Mr. Spivey:
Co?16e, �b
TbIVT 43erz`th45
i�NWY Lo 5-:
M m� "DD
'61C -C- Wt,7AZY
b�Z I,a 1 'ice
CC— Fio[z►A14 I
(2- F1 G-1✓ -
8"W
I have asked staff to review the subject letter and provide a response to the issues
raised with regard to the nature and timing of infrastructure improvements associated
with conceptual PCD applications (Conceptual PCDs) along Chenal Parkway in the
vicinity of Kanis and Kirk Road.
Staff reports that review of the Conceptual PCD application was lengthy and involved.
The file reflects that a lot of effort was spent on projected traffic volumes for both the
Conceptual PCD and upcoming Deltic developments and whether infrastructure
improvements proposed by the applicant would mitigate for those impacts. The file
also reflects considerable involvement in these discussions by you, your client and
client's consultant.
A report from me to the Board of Directors dated June 12, 2006, (and included with this
memo as Attachment 1) summarizes these discussions and the improvements to be
constructed as part of the development. The resulting Ordinance (Attachment 2) also
contains several requirements for infrastructure improvements and Attachment 3 is a
letter from the applicant committing to the improvements.
To address your specific questions:
Question: Will the unavailability of necessary right-of-way also adversely impact
construction or capacity of the Planned Traffic Circle to be constructed at the
intersection of Kirk Road, Wellington Hills, Champlin Drive and Arkansas Systems
Drive?
Response: The City is unaware of what is meant by the "unavailability of necessary
right-of-way." The developer is responsible for obtaining the necessary right-of-way.
Question: Have plans been submitted by the Developer for the improvements to
Arkansas Systems Drive, Champlin Drive, Chenal Parkway and Wellington Hills Road?
Response: Plans have been submitted by the Developer for improvements "north" of
Chenal Parkway that would include Arkansas Systems Drive, Wellington Hills Road,
Champlin Drive and Kirk Road.
Question: If so, do these plans conform to the models presented to the Board in
2006?
Response: A copy of our review letter to Whisenhunt is included as Attachment "4"
and it details the deficiencies in the plans. We assume that "models presented to the
Board in 2006" refers to the previously referenced June 12, 2006 memo and
attachment.
Question: Will there be similar downgrades due to "right-of-way" or other
considerations?
Response: The City is unaware of what is meant by "similar downgrades due to 'right-
of-way' or other considerations_" It is our expectation that the developer will comply
with the requirements of the ordinance.
Question: Is it your intention to advise the Board of Directors of any requested
downgrades in quality or scope of Road Improvements prior to approval by City staff?
Response: See the response to the preceding question regarding staffs expectations.
Question: Does the City plan to eliminate or reduce the Chenal Parkway median in
lieu of requesting additional right-of-way by the developer?
Response: The plan attached to the June 12, 2006 memorandum showed a reduction
in the Chenal Parkway median to construct left turn lanes at Kirk Road and Kanis
Road,
Question: Will the road improvements be completed "piecemeal' or "simultaneously"
as represented to the Board of Directors in 2006?
Response: The June 6, 2006, letter from the Developer to staff and the June 12, 2006
memorandum from me to the Board both state that all improvements will be
constructed at the same time.
Question: Does the nature of the "conceptual PCD" permit such changes and, if so,
what other changes in the rules adopted as pan` of the "conceptual PCD" approval are
also contemplated?
Response: The City is unaware of what is meant by "such changes" or "other
changes" so are unable to respond except in general terms which would be that any
changes would have to be incorporated into an amendment to the original application
and ordinance.
Question: Have supplemental traffic studies been completed to illustrate the impact of
changes in capacity and timing of completion of the various Road Improvements on
existing traffic loads on Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road?
Response: The City is unaware of what is meant by "changes in capacity and timing of
completion of the various Road Improvements" so are unable to respond.
Let me know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Bruce T. Moore
City Manager
cc: Steve Haralson, P.E., Public Works Director
Attachments
EDWARD L. WRIGHT
{190.1-19771 WRIGHT, LINDSEY
ROBERT S. LINDSEY
(1913-1941]
ALSTON JENNINGS �! "'-M)
(1G. LIL64] •f
JOHN G. LILE r •-
GORDON S. RATHER, JR.
ROGER A. GLASGOW p
ALSTONIENNINOS. IR. i'j 11 C� a `,•'[ii!
10 HN R. TISDALE
10 HN WILLIAM SPIVEY In
LEE
1. MULDROW _
N.M. NORTON Public'Nor
CHARLES C. COLEMAN PRICE Il)
CHARLES T. DjrEC%Of`S 011 1..
JAMES J. GLOVER
EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR.
GREGORY T. JONES (2) -
BETTINA B. BROWNSTEIN (3)
WALTER McSPADDEN
JOHN D. DAVIS
JUDY SIMMO NS HENRY
KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER
RAY F. COX- 1R.p)
TROY A. PRICE
KATHRYN A. PRYOR
J. MARK DAVIS (3)
Mr. Bruce Moore
City Manager
City Hall
500 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Mr. Steve Haralson, Director
Department of Public Works
City of Little Rock, Arkansas
701 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
CLAIRE= SHOWS HANCOCIC (4)
& JENNINGS LLP JERRYI. SALLINGS
WILLIAM STUART JACKSON �I7.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MICNARLD.BARNES
STEPHEN R. R. LANCASTER
KYLE R. WILSON
1
�r
C. TAD BOHANNON (3)
i((./ •
1. CHhRL£S DOUGHERTY (7)
200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 23911
L ROCK, ARKANSAS 726-944 99
M -SEAN HATCH
]. ANDREW VINES
�•'
(501L
(507) 371-OBOR FAX (sot) 376-9443
MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING
1^
903 NORTH 471`11 STREET. SUITE 101
SCOTT ANDREW IRBY
PATRICK D. WILSON
e--,�r
ROLE RS, ARKANSAS 12756
DAVID P. GLOVER
(479) 986 -ORBS FAX (479] 966-8932
REGINA A. YOUNG
PAUL D. MORRIS
EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG
mu•w. wlj.com
DAWN D. JACKSON
•
CA LEY B. YO
GARY D. MARTS, JR.
OF COUNSEL
ERIC BERGER
RONALD A. MAY
P. DELANNA PADILLA
ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR_
MARK N. OHRENBERGER
BRUCE R. I.INDSEY (2)
KATHRYN M. MARTINEZ
JUDY ROBINSON WILBER
JEFFREY D. WOOD
JAMES R. VAN DOVER
ELGIN R. CLEMONS. JR.(6)
Alsn Ur --d rn Prncri rc Jn
CHARLES S. BOHANNON (3)
1 M/chrgmr
] Disnicr rf CoL!mbib
3 Tens
W rircr's Di—, Dlal Nn. 501-212-13[0
4 Ncm Ynrk
j.plvcy®wlj.cnm
5 Nnnh Cnrnlfna
Reply In Lirllc R-1, Officc
6 Llccrr,ccd in A(— Ynrk nn1J•
7 L)ccnscd In prncrice before )lrc
L'n(scd
Srnres Pm—, mud Trcrdcmn.k DJ/—
August 13, 2007
Re: Road Improvements for Cherlal Parkway, Kirk Road, Wellington Hills Drive, Champlin
Drive and Arkansas Systems Drive (the "Road Improvements")
Gentlemen:
We are attorneys for Chenal Valley Municipal Property Owners Multipurpose Improvement
District Number 4 of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas and Deltic Timber Corporation and
appeared before the Board of Directors at its meetings in the summer of 2006 to bring to the
Board's attention serious concerns about the growth in congestion and traffic from unanticipated
increases in commercial and office zoning in West Little Rock. At those meetings, the Board of
Directors was assured by the staff of the Public Works Department including Mr. Haralson and
Mr. Henry, the city traffic engineer, that the Road Improvements proposed for Kirk Road,
Wellington Hills Road, Champlin Drive, Arkansas Systems Drive and Chenal Parkway would
redistribute traffic in such a way so as to lessen the impact from the full development of
conceptual planned commercial developments- Extensive traffic studies were prepared and
presented to the Board of Directors which were based upon the Road Improvements modeled by
the City Staff. Our recollection is that the models for these Road Improvements were presented
712494-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
August 13, 2007
Page 2
to the Board and were approved as amendments to the Master Street Plan of the City. These
Road Improvements were also important elements of the Board's approval of the "conceptual
PCDs" proposed by Mr. Whisenhunt, the owner of the adjacent properties (the "conceptual
PCDS").
Recently, it has come to our attention that instead of the models presented as part of the
conceptual PCD's in 2006, the City has received and may intend to approve the construction of
Road Improvements which have been downgraded from those presented to the Board in 2006.
Instead of building six lanes of traffic on Kirk Road north of its proposed intersection with Chenal
Parkway to the proposed traffic circle, current plans call for construction of only five lanes of
traffic in a narrower right of -way. It is unclear whether the same five lane configuration would
continue on the property controlled by Mr. Whisenhunt south of Chenal Parkway. The reasons
offered for these apparent downgrades is the Developer's inability to obtain the necessary right-of-
way for the originally proposed six lanes of traffic. We are somewhat confounded by this
explanation since it appears that the five lames of traffic exceed the existing right-of-way and,
therefore, some agreement must have been reached with the abutting land owners to expand the
existing right-of-way to accommodate the proposed improvements. Was this obstacle urilmown to
the City at the time the Developer and the City Staff presented the models for the conceptual
PLDs and Road Improvements in 2006? Furthermore, if only five lanes are to be constructed
south of Chenal Parkway, is the reason also the unavailability of right-of-way?
The apparently pending approval raises serious questions about the remainder of the Road
Improvearents presented to the City Board last year.
+ Will the unavailability of necessary right-of-way also adversely impact
construction or capacity of the Planned Traffic Circle to be constructed at the intersection of Dirk
Road, Wellington Hills, Champlin Drive and Arkansas Systems Drive?
a Have plans been submitted by the Developer for the improvements to Arkansas
Systems Drive, Champlin Drive, Chenal Parkway and Wellington Hills Road?
If so, do these plans conform to the models presented to the Board in 2006?
Will there be similar downgrades due to "right-of-way" or other considerations?
+ Is it your intention to advise the Board of Directors of any requested downgrades
in quality or scope of Road Improvements prior to approval by City Staffffl,
4 Does the City plan to eliminate or reduce the Cbenal Parkway median in lieu of
requesting dedication of additional right-of-way by the Developer?
712494-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JL•NNINGS LLP
August 13, 2007
Page 3
+ Will the Road Improvements be completed "piecemeal" or "simultaneously" as
represented to the Board of Directors in 2006?
+ Does the nature of the "conceptual PCDs" permit such changes and, if so, what
other changes in the rules adopted as part of the "conceptual PCA" approval are also
contemplated?
• Have supplemental traffic studies been completed to illustrate the impact of
changes in capacity and timing of completion of the various Road Improvements on existing
traffic loads on Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road?
In 2006, the City Board was advised that all of the proposed Road Improvements would be
completed simultaneously with the opening of the Fellowship Bible Church's new facilities. It is
not our purpose to in any way hinder or delay the completion of the Fellowship Bible Church
project. However, we remain concerned that the City's failure to require the timely completion
of the Road Improvements proposed by the developer in conjunction with the original "conceptual
PLDs" will only tend to further exacerbate existing traffic problems, and congestion on Chenal
Parkway and Rahling Road. If access to the new Fellowship facilities is limited to only one or
two routes, won't this create a significant shift in traffic burdens far beyond the current burdens
on existing streets?
We understand that these are pressing matters and would therefore request clarification of the
issues raised above prior to the next scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors.
Cordially,
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
John William Spivey JU
Attorneys for Chenal Valley Municipal Owner's
Multipurpose Improvement District No. 4 of the
City of Little Rock, Arkansas and Deltic 'Timber
Corporation
TWSlndf
cc: Mark Stodola, Mayor
Mr. Michael Keck
712494-v1
Case 4:07,cw01099-JIMM Document 43 Filed 1 U107=08 Page 1 Of 11
IN THE uNN JTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTFRN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
JOE U. W1I1SENHUNT gad PLAINTIFFS
MARGARET H. Y(ff19FNMN -r
V. 4t0XV0001099 dMM
souTHWESTLRN'TELEPHONE L.P.,
dIbla ,JT&T ARKANSAS, and
SOUTHWESTERN BELL T"PHONE DEFENDANTS
CO,NlPANY d/b/a AT&T ARKANSAS
MD M.. ito wwAzo
Pending is Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment_ Plaintiffs have responded For
the reasons set fbAh below, the Motion is GRANTED.
On March 4, 2006, Plaintifilk Joe D. and Margaret H. Whisanhunt (the "Whisenhunts")
sold rag property (`Fellowship Property") to i+ellOwship Bible Church, The Whisenhunts
retained adjacent real property (the "Whisenbunt Property"). (Ex. O to Complaint, Real Estste
Purchase Agreement, at P. 1.) Under the Development Agreement between Fellowship and the
Whisenhunts, the Whisenhunts agreed that they had "expertise in the development of real
property" and, therefore, the Whisenhunts would "develop the Real Property, the Whisenhunt
Property, certain streets and roads and areas adjoining and adjacent thereto...." (Ex. J to
Complaint at p. 1.) Specifically, the parties agreed that the Whisenhunts would perform the Site
ZI/Zl] 'd
Improvement Work for the Properties.
The Site Improvement Work included dirt work, utilities, roadways, street lighting and
drainage needed for the Properties, as well as obtaining all governmental approvals, permits and
licenses nreessary for the work, One aspect of the utility acquisition included providing
telephone services and "the relocationidemoiition of such services, lines, or utilltios presently
Z
- 496e) -(—�
Wu A7.:
Pn Rnnz-t, i -inn
Case 4:07-cv-01099-JMM Document O f=lied 10/07/2008 Page 2 of 1 f
existing (if any) and the installation/reinstalladon of... wiring ...and other appurtenant devices.
..:' (Ex. 3 to Complaint at p. 2.) Fellowship agreed to contribute to the costs of performing the
Site Work in an amount not to exceed Two Million Dollars. (Ex. O to Complaint at p. 3.)
According to the map created by Development Consultants, several public streets
surround and intersect the Real Property and the Whisenhunt Property. (Ex. A to Complaint.)
These strecta are Champlin Drive, Wellington Village Road, Wellington Hills Road and Kirk
Road. M Wellington Hills Road and Kirk Road ineersect with Chenal Parkway which connects
I-630 to West Little Bock and Higliway 10. Id The map also shows that undetgruwtd telephone
lines woo located beneath the center of Kirk Road but were proposed to be moved and extended
to Fellowship Bible Church's facility. Id
Pursuant to the plans undertaken by Fellowship and the Whisenhtmts, a request was made
to the City of Little Rock Planning Commission ("LRPC") for a change in land use. (Pl.'s Ex. 2
to the Resp. to Mot. for Summ. Judg, at p. 4.) The Real Fropetty and the Whisenhunt Property
were previously zoned R-2, MF -6, O-2 and C -t (single-family, multi -family, office, and
commercial). The Whisenhunts requested that its property be zoned 0-2 and G2- mix of 700/0
office and 300A commercial uses. The Whisenhunts proposed basic development composition of
70% office and 30% commercial with multiple development guidelines, public infrastructure
improvements, signage guidelines, grading and excavation guidelines. In relation to the request,
the Minutes of the LRPC state that, "The developer will review related utility infrastructure
needs with the various utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific
utility improvements that will be required." (Pi's Ex. 2 to the Resp. to hoot, for Sumter Judg, at
p. 12-14.) The Minutes fiurther discuss the Master Street Plan and refer to an amendment to the
2
ZI/£0'd rail t;2:An finny -iii -inn
Case 4:07-ev-01099-JMM Document 43 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 3 of 11
Master Street Plan before the Hoard of Directors in this area.
Wellington Hills Blvd. and Champlin Drive are shown as Atterials on the Plan. Kirk is
shown as a Collector with a request to change It to an Arterial.... An Arterial flmctions
to move traffic through and around the urban area or $otn activity centers to the Arterial
system.... None of these roads aro built to standard. Right-of-way and street
improvements will need to be made at the time of development"
Id. at 16. Mr. Ernie Peoers addrowd the LRPC to detail the results of a traffic study for the area
based upon the proposed changes to land use and zoning. Id. at 19. Mr. Peters stated:
"the Wisenhtmt's [sic] were proposing to improve the intersection of Kanis Road and
Chenal Parkway, Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway and add an additional lane to Chenal
Parkway adjacent to the existing Kroger Development He stated the remaining roadway
would need improvements via developers or with the expending of public funds....
Staff stated to assume the public would Rind the improvements was not a safe
assumption.
Commissioner Rehman stated he would like additional time to review the traffic study
and information provided by Mr. Peters and requested a deferral of the itez;t. Mr. Dick
Downing, representative ofthe [Whisenbunts], stated the owners did not have time for a
deferral. He stated the time constraints were such that if the zoning were not approved
the strict schedules imposed by the Fellowship Bible Church could not be met. Mr.
Downing stated the developers were committed to in$astructtim improvements abutting
their ownership as required by the traffic study to facilitate traffic flows in the area,
Mr. Downing stated the Board of Directors approved an amendment to the Master Street
Plan to realign Wellington Hills and Kirk Roads and the changes proposed were
specifically for the proposed development of the church and the current rezoning request.
A motion was made to approve the request as tiled. The motion carried by a vote of 6
ayes, 0 noes and S absent
Id at 19-20. The Mimrtes go onto detail Fellowship's permit request for the building of the
church and facilities. In reference to the infrastructure work required for the request, the
Minutes state:
The overall infrastructure project planned by Whisenhunt Investments will include new
construction and/or widening to Champlin Drive, Wellington Village Road, Wellington
Hills Road, Kirk Road, Chenal Parkway, and Kanis Road (west of Chenal). Street will be
71/bn 111 UP 07 -an onn7_ht_inn
a
Case 4:07-cv-01099-JMM Document 43 Filed 10107/2003 Page 4 of l l
built w the full requirements as negotiated with City of Little Rock Traffic -
Id at 36.
Ordinsnee Numbersa 19,560 and 19,561 approved the planned zoning development and
amended the ofircial zoning map of Little Kock pursuant to the request of the Whiscnhunts.
(fief'! Ex. 4 and 5 to the Mot, for Stn= Judg,) Ordinance 19,560 Section 2(dxl) states in
pertinent part:
p if jt is determined from the updated traffic study required by this subsection
that projecwd revels of service at any iatters"Gans adjacent to tha praposed
devaloprnent will likely fall below ac-puble level of service, as that term is
defined by the Institute ofT'r=portation Engincera at the lima of the application
Foy Cinal plan approval, then as a condition of s'scb approval, the developer shall
agree to make such additional boundary strrat intprovaments as the City deems to
be necessary to mitigate the impact afthis developrnml on that area,
([)) The developer shall negoliare an agreement with Cityof Little Rock Public
Works and TraiBc Engineering for the installation of specific street Improvement
that will be required;
(1=) The developer shall review telatetl utility infmtnicture needs with the var€sus
utility companies sad negatiate agreements for the imtallarion of specific ut[lity
improvemcnta that will be required it oderatand in g that the cost of rel ncation of
any utilities may be the responsibility of the developer at the bene of such
relocation.
(Days Ex. 4 w the Mot. for Summ. Juds.)
Tito Defendants have it franchise agreament with the City of Little Rock. The franchise
agreement entitles the Defendants to the use of Little Rock's streets. This agreement was
adopted by ordinance in 1952. (Dof.'s Ex. 9 to the Mol. for summ. Judg.) Beginning in 1969,
the franchise ordinance was amended on an annual basis to set the annual privilege fee to be paid
to the City by AT&T during the upcoming year, in all other respects, the annual franchise
ordinance adopted the same terms and conditions. However. ordinance Number 14,981,
7l lGn 'a
LTH R7 t Rn Ann -..-b l –Inn
Casa 4:07-cv-01499-JMM Document 43 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 5 of 11
adopted in I gas, included a specific utility relomnitm policy. it addresses utility relocation and
the costs as follnwe:
Section 10. Utility R.elocatlon Policy
14-1 lu the interest of the public health, safety and welfare and consistent with
the City's ordinances and master plsns, the City a: Little Ruck may make of cause to Inc
made improvements, repairs, ut reptacertemts of the public faciIi6es located on public
righrs-af--wrdy. Such conacruction activity commonly requires adjustment or relocation of
installations of public utilities. The City deems the fight of public utilities to use public
rights-of-way to be permissive and subordinate to the reasonable eYerci#ts of the City's
police power. Thus, the cost of relocating a public utility installation should not be barna
by the City.
For purposes of this policy, the term "public utility" shall mean any organization
performing a public service by authority of the City of Little Reek, whethcr under a
franchise or by a eomulission,
10.2 The policy of tbo City of Little Rock is io require a public utility to promptly adjust
its PaoiI16es in, upon, under or above any right-of-way administered by the City of LatIc
Rock and by ❑fficlals, boards, commissicna, and depaMents of the City of Little Rock,
to aecominadate construction, improvements, alterations or maintenance of public
facilities when directed to do so by tho Director of Public Works or other officials
authorized by the City Manager. thilissca shall make adjustments at their own oxpense.
exe:.pc 99 otherwise provided hereinafter. In conneeticn with any public works projects
appmvcd and/or performed by tha City regardless of the source of the funds for the
project.
10.3 Asa matter of policy the City will sack to rrJn =e current and future installation
adjustment cants for utilities by such =arms as regular and systematic consultation in
public works p1wming. advance cnginearing to the entero feasible, and carciul
consideratfon of pubtic utility needs and installations in both planning And design..
10.4 The City will also reimburse a publiv utility for the direct costs of required
adjustmcnas wit co the utility can demoarm te that the utility acquired the right-of-way or
otherwise occupied It prior to she dedication of the right-of•way either to the Citc of
Liitic Rock or to any other unit of local government. Adjustment costs sl all be
reimbursed, when appropriate, under an agreement between tine City and the utility frr
the particular project. Such agTeemenl shall describe th"- scope of the utiiit}'s adlustmeas
work and allocate costs- The cast allocation shalt not require the City to reimbvur For
betterments which ate only ocraAoned by the adjustments rcquL-cd.
(Pl..'s 6x. 10 to the Mot. for 5unun. 3udg.)
21/901d W8 02:80 8002—b1-100
Case 4:07-OV-01099-JMM Document 43 Filed 10/0712008 Page 6 0111
Subsequently, the Whisenhunts requested that the Defendants relocate the telephone line9
in accordance with the development plan9. The Defendants agreed ro make the necessary
relocstlons provided the Whisenhunts agreed to pay the costs. (Def's Ex -7 to the Mot, for
sumrn. Judg.) The Whisenhunts refused to pay the cost of the utility relocations and requested
that the costs be paid by the Defendants. The Whisenhunts, filed suit against the Defendants for
declaratory judgment seeking a determination as to who is responsible for the casts of the utility
`.' relocation. The Defendants ask the Court to grant summary judgment of the claims. The
l Defendants contend that the Whisenhunts' private development plan triggered the necessity for
. ' utility relocation and, therefore, the cost of the relocation must be borne by the Whisenhunts.
The Wbisenhunts argue that the improvements to Kirk Road Involve a public purpose and,
therefore, the Defendants are responsible for the costs pursuant to the franchise agreement with
the City of Little Rock.
�t r,¢�llitisliStd,RL��
seminary judgment Is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact, so
that the dispute may be decided solely an legal grounds. Holloway v. Lockhart, 813 F.2d 874
(8th Cir. 1987), Fed, R. Civ. P. 56. The Supreme Court has established guidelines to assist trial
courts in darrmining whether this standard has bcen mei:
'Ilse inquiry is the threshold inquiry of determining whether there
is a need for vial •- whabcr, in arher wards, there arc genuine
factual issuc9 that properly can be resolved nary by a Finder of tact
becPi4t they may reasonably be resolved in favor of ether patty.
.4nderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986).
The Eighth Circuit Court or Appeals has cautioned that summary judgmznt should be
invoked carefully so that no person will ho improperly deprived of a trial of disputed factual
;1.1/)P. 'J vy np.: Ali Aw—b i-1.;1[1.
Case 4:07-cv-01099-JMM Document 43 Filed i0107/200B Page 7 of 11
issues. Inland OU & 7Yansport Co. V. United States, 600 F.2d 725 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied,
444 U.S. 991 (1979). The Eighth Circuit set out the burden of the parties in connection with a
summaryjudgment motion in Counts v. M.K. Ferguson Co., 862 F2d 1339 (8th Cir. 1988):
[T]he burden on thin moving party for summary judgment is only to
demonsrrntr., i.e., '(tin) point out to the District Court.' that the
record does not disclose a genuine dispute on a material fact. It Is
enough for the movant to bring up the fact that thtt record does not
contain such an Issue and to identify that pert o£ihe record which
bears out his assertion. Once this is done, his burden is
discharged. and, if the record In [act bears cut the ctaim that no
genuine dispute exists on any inuedal fact, it is thea the
respondent's burden to set forth afiutttative evidence, specific
facts, showing that there is a genuine dispute on that issue. if the
respondent fails to carry that burden, summary judgment should be
granted.
Id. at 1339. (quoting CYV of Mr. Pleasant v. Associated Ekec. Coop., 838 F.2d 268, 273-274 (8th -
Cir. 1988) (citations omitted)(brackets In original)). Only disputes over facts that may affect the
outcome of the suit under governing law will properly preclude the entry of sutmnary judgment.
Amiorson, 477 U.S. at 248.
The Defendants cite Ark. La. Gas Co. v City ofLiffle Rock, 506 S. W.2d 555 (Ark 1974)
in support of its position that the Whisenhunts are responsible for the costs of relocating the
telephone lines located on the Yraperties, The Little Rock Housing Authority brought suit to
require Arkla Gas Company to relocate certain gas lines located in an urban renewal project area.
The trial court found that Arkla was liable for the costs because the Housing Authority was an
agent of the City of Little Rock On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed. The
Supreme Court found that the Housing Authority was a separate and independent body
corporate. The Court stated, "Although the City did lend its cooperation under a written
;;.1/An,,l uu 1r:Rn Qnn7-bi-inn
Case 4:07-cw01099-NM Document 43 Flied 10/07/20DS Page 9 of 11
agtcament of cooperation, it is clear that Hoosing Authority was the dominant moving party in
the Swag&crty Stanch improvement." Id at 558. As the dominant moving party in the project,
the Housing Authority was,responsible far the costa of relocating the gas lines.
Tn the instant case, the Whisenhunts argue that the City caused the improvements to Kirk
Road to be made for the public good. While:he City did require the improvements to Kirk Road
to be made by the Whisetthimts, there is no evidence that the City would have undertaken the
improvements at the time if the Whisenhunts were not developing the area. (See e.g, Def.'s Ex.
1 g to the Mot. for Surma. Judg., Depo, of Bruce Moore at p, 31; Def's Ex. 19 to Mot. for Sumtn.
Judg., Depo. of Vince Flotiani at p. 21; PL's Ex. 2 to Resp_ to Mot, for 5umm. Judg., LFRC
Minutes, at p. 19-26)("Mr. Downing stated the Hoard of Directors approved an amendment to
the Master Street Plan to realign Wellington Hills and Kirk Rosch and the changes proposed
were speafteally for the proposed development of the church and the current rezoning request.. .
.") The City required the Whisenhumts to make the Improvements to Kirk Road based upon the
Wltisenhunts' plans for development of the area. In other words, the Whise» ]runts were the
dominant moving patty in the development of the Whisenhunt Property and the Fellowship
Property which necessitated the improvements to Kirk Road.
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants are required to shoulder the costs of the utility
m -location pursuant to the Dokndattts' franchise with the City of Little Rock. The language of
the franchise embodies the common law rule that public utilities are required to bear the cost of
relocating equipment in a public right of way when the relocation is required by public necessity,
or in Little Roc&, when required for a "public works project." See generally Narfolk Redev. &
Hoy+sing;turh. v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone, 444 U.S. 30 (1983): Little Rock, AR..
Z[/lit] Id LIH 19!90 9f1n?—nT_1nn
Case 4;07-Cv-01099-JMM Document 43 Flled 1 D/07/2005 Page 9 of 11
Ordinance Number 14,981(1985). "An exception to the general rule Is... held to exist when
the actions of it private developer necessitate the relocation of the utility Unes." 99-181 Op. Ark
Att'y (3en. (1999)(eiiing pack Gas and Electric Company Y. Dame Construction Company.
Inc., 191 Cal, App3d 233 (Cal. 1987)). The Court does not Sind any evidence that the
development of the Fellowship Property of the Whisonhunt Property which necessitated the
improvements to Kirk Road was a "public works project." Instead, the situation falls squarely
within an exception to the general rule.
The Court is also persuaded by other jurisdictions which have found a private developer
liable for the costs of relocating utilities in order to improve roadways around the developer's
property. See Pae. Gas & Elec. Co. Y. Rama Court. Co., Ixc..191 Cal. App. 3d 233 (Cal.
1997)("[Me hold that -where a private parry, on its own Initiative and not that of government,
develops a parcel of land and thereby creates or aggravates a need for a public improvement
which requires the relocation of existing utility equipment, the private party shall bear the
necessary relocation costs."); Potomac Elea. Prover Co. v. Clasrk Comm. Corp., 836 A.2d 660
(Md. 2004)("We find no legal basis, and certainly no equitable one, for requiring a utility's
rote -paying customers to bear a cost triggered and made necessary by a private developer's
project and thus, in effect, to subsidize the cost of the development.', Home builders rlss'n Y.
Sr. Lords Cry. water Co.. 784 5.W.2d 287 (Mo. 1999)("Developers, by their private development
decisions, have triggered the need for road improvements and thus fot facility relocations. 'Thr)
are in a position, when making those development decisions, to factor the cost of utility
relocations into Choir project plans. They can accept those costs, if feasible, and proceed to
complete their projects. Or, they can decline to undertake a project if the relocation costs are
7.l/nI',i tit; 2s:nn ann?-fit-)un
Case 4:07-cv-01098-JMM Document 43 Filed 10107/2000 Page 10 o1 " 1
beyond their present resources. Developers thus have a better opportunity than the Water
Company to anticipate and to plan for the costs of relocation associated with their proposed
Projects.-); Sundquls! Homes Inc, Is, Snohomish Cry. Publ UNI, Dist, No. 1,140 Wash, 2d 403
(Wash 2000)C"I'tte principal issue before us is whether a public utility district may charge a real
estate developer for costs the district immn in relocating electrical transmission Jhcilities, when
the relocation is a necessary condition of the developer's project. We answer that question in the
affirmative.. _ . .
Moreover, the evidm- in the record shows that the Whisenhunts, through their
reprt:sentative, agr ed to make the necessary infrastructure improvements required by the City in
order to expedite the LRPC's apprm-al of the development plans. (pl.'s Ex. 2 to Reap. to Mot.
for Sumtn. 7udg. at p. 19.24.) The Whisenhunts also negotiated the costs of the infrastructure
improvements into their Real Sstate Sale Agreement and Development Agreement, of which the
utility relocation was a part. (Ex. J to Complaint at p. 2.)
Based upon this evidence, the Court finds there is no question of material fact to be
decided by a jury. The development of the Properties is not a "public works project" as required
by the pefendauts' franchise. The Plaintiffs were the "dominant moving party" in causing the
telephone lines to be relocated, Ark. La, Gas Co., 506 S.W 2d at 558. Plaintiffs are responsible
for the costs of the utility relocation.
The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 24) is GRANTED. The
Cleric is directed to close the case.
sir
7.1/11'd uH ?P!An Anne -fit -inn
Case 4.07.cw-01o9g-JMM Document 43 Filed 10/07/2008 Page 11 of 11
IT IS SO OpDLRED this 7s` day of October 2008.
r mr� ,,V.Udy
United Statea District Judge
11
zl/Zt'd wu EE -:90 8002-b1-100
June 22, 2006
Mr. Bruce Moore
City Manager
City of Little Rock
500 West Markham Street
Room #203
Little Rock, AR 72201
RE: P1180
Whisenhunt Development
Dear Mr. Moore:
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc., at the request of the City Board of Directors on June 20, 2006, has
conducted additional traffic study related to zoning and Land Use Plan changes in relation to Whisenhunt
Investment's applications under consideration by the Board. This additional study was done to address
the question of the effect, in terms of traffic operational impact to the vicinity street network for different
assumptions related to development intensity for the Whisenhunt property than that used for the
approximately 1,100 acres of yet undeveloped land uses included in our original Traffic Study, dated
April 4, 2006.
The question raised during discussion by the Board related to a condition of "what if' the Whisenhunt
property were to develop at some maximum intensity instead of an average intensity, consistent with
what has been typical of recent vicinity developments of similar character. In order to assess this question
our analysis assumed the following conditions for each tract included in the Whisenhunt applications:
The tracts developed at maximum density as set out in the application.
The traffic generation associated with each proposed land use estimated by applying maximum
trip generation rates as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (instead of the
average rates used for the referenced study as is typically used).
It should be recognized that assessment based on these maximum intensity conditions is not consistent
with normal practice in the traffic engineering profession for analysis of projected traffic conditions and
will result in traffic volumes that are likely well in excess of what will materialize. This yields results
that should not be relied upon for making decisions on appropriate roadway network improvement.
The result of assessing this "what if' condition has indicated the maximum land use density and
maximum trip generation for the Whisenhunt tracts would result in approximately 1,900 additional
vehicle trips (combined in and out traffic) during the worst case PM peak traffic hour at fill]
development. This data is summarized ori the attached Exhibit A.
P.O. BOX 21638 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72221 (501) 225-0500 FAX: (501) 225-0602
Mr. Bruce Moore
.Tune 22, 2006
Page 2
For this condition, the additional traffic would be distributed over the vicinity roadway network. This
was done with our analysis model, using consistent procedures used in earlier study. The effect on traffic
operations that could be expected for this "what if' condition is summarized below.
Only one intersection (Rahling Road and Champlin Drive changing from LOS C to LOS D) overall level -
of -service (LOS) is lower than that which was previously projected for the full -build condition. Still
some intersections that comprise the vicinity roadway network would experience heaver vehicle loadings
and at some intersections minor additional vehicle delay would result, for this maximum "what if'
condition, compared to that determined in the earlier study. This is not projected to overburden those
intersections, however.
It is worth noting that all analysis we conducted has not included any reduction in traffic volumes that
would be associated with "pass -by" trips (that is trips that are already in the adjacent street volumes that
would be destined for particular development tracts). Similarly the analysis has not included any
reduction for "multi-purpose or internal trip capture" (which would account for that portion of the site
trips that relate to multiple site visits within a tract without exiting to the street and re-entering the site).
Not malting these reductions provides an approximate twenty-five percent safety factor in the volumes
used for analysis.
We believe the earlier study provides valid and accurate assessment of future traffic operating conditions
as this area is fully developed. It has taken into account developed property, yet undeveloped property
and growth in existing traffic volumes in the vicinity not directly related to vicinity development
(background growth). It leas provided a fair assessment of what can reasonably be expected to be future
traffic conditions as the area fully develops. It serves as a proper basis for the City to consider what is
proper and necessary for the roadway network to accommodate projected future traffic demands. As a
result of our study findings, we set out recommendations for roadway improvements within the limits of
Whisenhunt's control. The recommendations were for improvements beyond the minimum design and
Master Street Plan standards of the City. It is my understanding that Whisenhunt has agreed to
incorporate our recommendations in the roadway improvements they have committed to construct.
Please let me ]snow if there are further questions or if you need additional information related to this
matter.
Sincerely,
PETERS & ASSOCIATES, ENGINEERS, INC.
Ernest J. Peters. P.E.
President
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
W/zisenhunt Tracts Comparison - Maximum Trip Generation Rates and Volumes
CLASSIFICATION
APPROX
ACRES SIZE UNITS
Tract Z5617 -A -- 30.80 ACPM
Rate
PEAK
ENTER
R
HUR
EM
Volume
PM PEAK
ENTER
HOU .
EXIT
R-2
10.24
20
Lots
1.88
1.10
38
22
C-3
0.8S
7,400
Sq. Ft.
2.27
2.89
17
21
PCD
19.71
85,800
85,800
Retail Sq. Ft.
Office Sq. Ft.
2.27
1.09
2.89
5.30
195
94
248
455
21.20 212,000
Sq. Ft.
TOTALS:
2.89
i
TOTALS:
0-2
9.08 181,600
Sq. Ft.
1.09
5.30
198
C-2
3.15 30,000
Sq. Ft.
C-2
26.18
314,500
Sq. Ft.
2.27
2.89
714
909
0-2
4.62
55,000
Sq. Ft.
1.09
5.30
60
292
TOTALS:
TOTALS:
Difference,431 1 454
Differenceil 60 1 355
Tract 4807-F -- 10.50 AC
C-1
1.00 8,712
Sq. Ft.
2.27 2.89
2.27
20
25
0-2
1.50 13,068
Sq. Ft.
1.09 5.30
1.09
14
69
MF6
8.00 48
Units
1.07 0.57
TOTALS:
51
11
C-2
21.20 212,000
Sq. Ft.
TOTALS:
2.89
i
613
0-2
9.08 181,600
Sq. Ft.
1.09
5.30
198
C-2
3.15 30,000
Sq. Ft.
2.27
2.89
TOTALS:
68
87
0-2
7.35 70,560
Sq. Ft.
L 1.09
5.30
1261
77
374
TOTALS:
Differenceil 60 1 355
Exhibit A
Total Difference 8411,070
1911
Tract 4807-G -- 30.28 -AC
C-1
4.00 34,848
Sq. Ft.
2.27
2.89
79
101
0-2
26.28 228,950
S. Ft.
1.09
5.30
250
1,213
TOTALS:
C-2
21.20 212,000
Sq. Ft.
2.27
2.89
481
613
0-2
9.08 181,600
Sq. Ft.
1.09
5.30
198
962
TOTALS:
Differencell
351
1261
Exhibit A
Total Difference 8411,070
1911
Addendum to:
Traffic Study Dated April 4, 2006
(Whisenhunt Investments)
and
Traffic Study Dated April 26, 2006
(Deltic Timber Corp.)
Additional Analysis Scenarios 1- 4:
May 24, 2006
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS, INC
• CIVIL STRAFFICENGINIA"RING •
P.O. 1:30X 2163$ (5() 1) 225-0500
1,1"1`[ 1 E ROCK_ ARKANS,kS 72221
f Kir-arra
Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted a traffic study for the assessment of an applica-
tion to the City of Little Rock by two developers (Deltic Timber Corporation and Whisenhunt In-
vestments) for proposed land -use changes to the City Land -Use Plan (LUP) and proposed
changes to the Master Street Plan (MSP) in Little Rock, Arkansas. The study conducted for
Deltic Timber Corporation is dated April 26, 2006 and the study conducted for Whisenhunt In-
vestments is dated April 4, 2006. The study area is bound by Rahling Road (to the north) Wel-
lington Village Road (to the east), Pride Valley Drive (to the south) and Rahling Road future ex-
tension (to the west).
As requested by the City of Little Rock and the two aforementioned developers of property in
the study area vicinity, Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc. conducted additional analysis
(beyond the scope of the original reports). Conditions for each additional analysis condition are
summarized as follows:
SCENARIO 1
• Not including Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes
■ Not including Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes
• Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes
• Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned
Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road
• Includes 10 -year background growth
Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure A, "Scenario
1 _ Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour."
SCENARIO 2
• Includes Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes
• Not including Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes
• Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes
• Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned
Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road
• Includes 10 -year background growth
Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure B, "Scenario
2 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour."
SCENARIO 3
• Includes Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes
■ Includes Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes
• Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes
■ Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned
Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road
Includes 10 -year background growth
Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure C,
"Scenario 3 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour."
SCENARIO 3-A
Includes Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes
• Includes Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes
Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes
�-:;, :: :.
Page I
Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned
Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road
Includes 10 -year background growth
Includes additional lanes along Chenal Parkway at the study intersections
Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure C,
"Scenario 3 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour."
SCENARIO 4
• Not including Deltic Timber Corporation land -use plan (LUP) changes
• Includes Whisenhunt Investments LUP changes
• Includes Whisenhunt Investments Master Street Plan (MSP) Changes
• Includes the assumption of LaGrande Drive planned extension to the planned
Rahling Road extension and the planned Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road
• Includes 10 -year background growth
Traffic volumes used for this scenario are shown on the attached Figure D,
"Scenario 4 — Projected Traffic Volumes — PM Peak Hour."
This additional analysis associated with these five scenarios has been conducted to assess the
approximate traffic volume contributions to each of the study intersections by the development
of tracts requested for land -use plan changes by the two aforementioned developers.
Herein are presented traffic data and findings of this traffic engineering investigation.
Overall intersection capacity and LOS analysis was conducted for each of the analysis scenar-
ios and the following is summarized on an attached table:
• Average Control Delay (seconds per vehicle)
• Intersection Capacity Utilization
Overall Intersection LOS.
This additional analysis is as reviewed with Tim Daters, Whisenhunt Investments and the City
staff prior to the May 25, 2006 Planning Commission meeting and was presented at that Plan-
ning Commission meeting.
r
PF] R,' & .\SS(WIATES
:„•. Page 2
-• ■
11
-�Mna I Parkway and Rahling Road (Traffic Signal
Scenario 1
- r
„>
a N
Control)
55.7
azo
9a8%
a
-
E
Scenario 2
73,9
1015%
E
Scenario 3
2298,3%
E
Scenario3-A36.6
83.6%
0
Scenario 4
Drive I Arkansas
Scenario 1
62.3
Sy5terrsi Drive (Trafft
135.0
97.0%
Signal Control)
111.4%
E
F
Scenario 2
Scenario
157.6
172.4
117.3%
120.9%
F
F
Scenario 3-A
82.1
972%
F
Scenario 4
Ch ma I Parkway and Kmknls Road Nest) Malfic Sigria
Scenario 1
146.7
I Control I
113,0%
F
B
Scenario 2
B
Scenario 3
C
Scenario 3-A
M26.1
Scenario 4
Scenario 1
27.8 1
78.2%
C
C
Scenario 2
30,6
B1-2%
C
Scenario 3
32,4
68.0%
C
Scenario 3-A
24.9
84.0%
C
Scenario 4
C h en at Parkway and Kanis RoRd (East) (Traffic Si
Scenario 1 1
30.0
g n al Control
41.9 1
84.5%
93,29%
C
P
:Scenario 2
585
98.3%
E
:Scenario 3
750
101.7%
E
:Scenario 3-A
236
819%
C
:Scenario 4
Scenario 1
57-9
Signal
40.6 •
97.fi %
BF37
E
P
Scenario 2
42.9
a2.4%
D
Scenario 3
45.5
B6.7%
D
Scenario 3-A
26.7
70.3%
C
Scenario
Kanis Road and Wellington Hills. Road (Wric Signal
Scenario 1 1
42.5
•
10.9
82.5%
30.2%
P
B
Scenario 2 1
11.3
31.6 %
B
Scenario 3
11.3
33.4%
B
Scenario 3-A
9.4
314%
A
Scenario 4
Wellington Hills Road and Wellington Village Road
Scenario 1
11.3
(Traffic Signal
86
3Z0%
Control)
33.6%
B
A
Scenario 2
89
34.2%
A
Scenario
8.9
38.1%
A
Scenario 3-A
7,9
38.1%
A
Sconarlo. 4
_
Scenario 1
9.0
r
9.0
37,4%
57.0%
A
A
Scenario 2
11,7
55.0%
A
Scenario 3
9,8
76.0 %
A
Scenario 3-A
9.8
76,0 %
A
Scenario 4
Road and WellIngton Village Road (Stop�'Sign
Scenario 1 1
9.3
Control)Kirk
1.1
70.0%
49,9%
A
nla
Scenario
1.1
50,9%
n/a
Scenario 3
12
52.0%
We
Scenario 3-A
1.2
52.0%
n/a
Scenario 4
a d a ri d C ha mpl in Drive (Traffic Signal
Scenario 1 •
1.2
Control)
21.9
50.9%
86.8%
n/a
C
Scenario
22.7
65.9%
C
Scenario 3
32.6
749%
C
Scenario 3-A
32.6
74.9%
C
$cenariin 4
Kirk Road and Pride Willy Road C'Sitojr Up
Scenario 1
23.7
troll
5.3
67,1%
28.5%nla
C
Scenario 2n/a
•Scenario3
5.8
30.4%
n!a
•Scenario 3-A
5.8
30.4%
nla
•Scenario 4
Rahling ,
Scenario 1
5.5
11'0
29.6%
30,5%
n!a
B
Scenario 2
15.0
31.7%
B
Scenario 3
90
32.3%
A
:Scenario 3-A
9.4
32.3%
'Scenario4
Rabling
:Scenario 1 '
7,6
16 0 Control)
30.9%
52.9% 19
:Scenario 2
15.3
:Scenario 3
19.6
742%
B
Scenario 3-A
19.6
74.2% 1
B
:Scenario 4
16 1
67.6% 1
B
T
CIVIL &
P.O. Box 21638
Little Rock. Arkarms 72221
501-225-0500
FAX: 501-225-0602
w«n�,-.traffic-eii-iiieei-s.coiii
WHISENHUNT INVESTMENTS
300 NORTH PINEY ROAD a P. O. BOX 593
STORY, WYOM NG 82842
TELEPHONE (501) 654-2712 FACSIMILE (501) 654-8121
June 6, 2006
Mr. Tony Bozynski
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Shackleford Farm Property Land Use Plan Amendments & PZD Applications
Dear Tony:
In response to your request for written description of the proposed roadway improvements associated
with the above applications, we are providing this letter to outline the improvements that Whisenhunt
Investments will make if the subject applications are approved. The proposed improvements are
necessary to provide adequate levels of service in the area based on both existing and/or proposed
land uses. The following outline summary will more specifically describe the proposed improvements
and their locations:
ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS:
KIRK & CHAMPLIN ALINGMENTS BETWEEN CHENAL AND RAHLING ROAD
Full road improvements to five lane minor arterial standard.
KIRK ROAD SOUTH OF CHENAL PARKWAY
Full road improvements to five lane minor arterial standard along the full length of the subject
property frontage.
WELLINGTON HILLS ROAD FROM ITS PRESENT WEST END TO KIRK / CHAMPLIN
Full road improvements to five lane minor arterial standard.
WELLINGTON VILLAGE ROAD FROM ITS PRESENT WEST END TO CHAMPLIN
Full road improvement to 36 foot wide collector street standard.
KANIS ROAD - WEST OF CHENAL PARKWAY
Half of a five lane minor arterial standard with a right tum lane extending along the full length
of the subject property frontage.
CHENAL PARKWAY BETWEEN KANIS WEST INTERSECTION & KIRK ROAD — SOUTH SIDE
Widen Chenal to add third travel lane with a right tum lane extending along the full length of
the subject property frontage.
G: 2006\06-115\Planning\06115i. doc
Page Two
June 6, 2006
CHENAL PARKWAY FROM KIRK ROAD TO KANIS EAST INTERSECTION
Various improvements to maintain desired lanes through intersection improvements.
INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS:
WELLINGTON VILLAGE & CHAMPLIN DRIVE
Non -signalized intersection with northbound right -turn lane on Champlin Drive.
KIRK ROAD & WELLINGTON HILLS ROAD
Two lane roundabout with and associated access lanes.
CHENAL PARKWAY & KIRK ROAD
Signalized intersection with dual left tum lanes on Chenal and approaches.
CHENAL PARKWAY & KANIS WEST
Signalized intersection with dual left turn lanes on Kanis and Chenal approaches.
The proposed improvements are necessary to maintain adequate levels of service, with or
without the proposed changes to land use and zoning that are proposed with this application.
The road improvements will be built in full, as described above, in one construction phase instead of
piecemealed with each developing project frontage. Several of these improvements also exceed the
normal Master Street Plan requirements for the subject streets and intersections.
We have demonstrated a long term commitment to this area with the existing Dairyland Shopping
Center and associated road improvements there. We built the Kanis Road (East) Intersection with
Chenal to a minor arterial standard on both sides and paid for the intersection signalization. We also
built a continuous right tum lane built across the entire Chenal frontage of the Dairyland Shopping
Center. We have also participated in preliminary design. and committed to participate in the cost of the
proposed Wellington Hills — Chenal intersection to the east of Dairyland Shopping Center.
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Whi nhunt
4��l ert
G: 2006106-115\P lann inq106115i.doc
EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES
>d Sid
aa� �
LOS "A" - Projected
Volumes at Initial
Completion of Roundabout
wl Developer's Roadway
Improvements
tub r - txis[ing volumes n0
and Lane Geometry ("Stop"
Sign Control)
LDS 'B" - Existing Volumes oo
wl Developer's Roadway
Improvements (Signal
Control
n
a �
pig a�
I
0
RD.
P c
061110 0
❑ � - -�— � � I I I I � 11 9� � d� Z7
q
i n i
LJLJ u Uv
a
til
y
Lb'u
v
M1�-np'Avq�
Q
�] 67
�Q
!1
I bo
Y
LC iTIlfT
Y Ij1�•11
t
� d Z:71 a
6R
a
LDS "F" - Existing Volumes
p
�
LOS "F" - Existing Volumes
n
Q ° ❑ C, a° G
kANI� o o C,*
�
and Lane Geometry ("Stop"
and Lane Geometry (Signal
�❑
Sign Control)'
Control)
LOS "B" - Existing Volumes
LOS "C" - Existing Volumes
of
wl Developers Roadway
wl Developer's Roadway
Improvements (Signal
n
o Improvements (Signal
0
° 1 Control)
Control)t
0 p 4
o
olip
o
I o .-
.
N ' This LOS is based on the
worst-case vehicle
movement with existing
"Stop" sign control.
-
OVERALL INTERSECTION
AND LANE GEOMETRY
LEVEL OF SERVICE SUMMARY
PROJECT No. P1180
WHISENHUNT PROJECT
PETERS & ASSOCIATES
Little Rock, Arkansas
KNE, INC.
DATE: 6-5-2006
BIBLE C1
June 5, 2006
Mr. Bruce T. Moore, City Manager
Little Rock City Hall
500 West Markham Street
Room 203
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Bruce,
As you know, the church has contracted with Whisenhunt Investments to buy an
excellent site at the center of the old Shackleford farm for our new campus. The church
site consists of 50 acres of the 110 acre piece of the farm lying North of Chenal Parkway.
In addition to the 110 acre property, Whisenhunt Investments is also buying the
remaining portion of the Shackleford farm lying South of Chenal. The South piece of the
farm is important to the overall site development plan.
I want to thank you and your staff for all the assistance given through the process of
obtaining our Conditional Use Permit as well as the support given for the Whisenhunt
applications. Special thanks go to Tony Bozynski, Dana Carney and Bill Henry.
Last week, based on the City staff s recommendations, the Planning Commission
unanimously approved our CUP as well as the land use and zoning applications of our
developer, Whisenhunt Investments. The final step in this process is obtaining approval
of the Board of Directors for the Whisenhunt applications.
The development plans for the entire site are complex, requiring building multiple streets,
improving intersections, and making other infrastructure improvements. In addition,
considerable earth work must be done to make the site usable, which requires the ability
to distribute fill material over the entire property. All street work is to be done at one
time and will commence after the earthwork is completed to insure high quality roads and
intersections. The roadwork to be completed by Whisenhunt Investments is substantial,
and includes improving Chenal from Kanis to Kanis as well as the complete construction
of the connection of Wellington Hills, Kirk, Champlin and Wellington Village Roads.
The end result will be a system of new roads to help disperse existing and future traffic
and the creation of a more efficient road network greatly benefiting the City.
CENTRAL CAMPUS 1 7907 Napa Valley Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212 1 voice: 501.224.7171 1 fax: 501.228.0804 1 www.fbclr.ory
Because the church site is in the middle of the entire development, our ability to move
forward is closely aligned with the plans for the other property owned by Whisenhunt
Investments. The church site is part of a unified development plan. In order to be able to
start our church building project this fall, it is very important that the site work begin as
soon as possible. Any significant delay may cause us to miss the March 2008 target for
completion of the church. Therefore, I want to ask for your support through the
completion of the approval process for the Whisenhunt applications with the Board of
Directors.
We have worked with Whisenhunt Investments to design a site that will work well for us,
for them, for our neighbors and for the City of Little Rock. The site development plan is
designed to minimize the impact on neighbors and on traffic in the area.
Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can supply any other information.
Thanks again for your encouragement and support.
Sincerely,
"icdobinson, CPA
Elder & Stewardship Pastor
WHISENHUNT INVESTMENTS
300 NORTH PINEY ROAD • P. O. BOX 593
STORY, WYOMING 82842
TELEPHONE (501) 654-2712 FACSIMILE (501) 654-8121
June 6, 2006
The Little Rock Board of Directors
Little Rock City Hall, Room 203
500 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Shackleford Farm Property Land Use Plan Amendments & PZD Applications
Dear Board Members:
In response to your questions at the June 13, 2006 agenda meeting, the following informational
statements are provided for your consideration:
KECK
1. What are Public Works expectations that are accompanying these planned zoning
developments? And what if any flexibility is there from the city's perspective as well as the
applicant's perspective for these proposed planned developments?
WHAT IS THE QUESTION ?
2. 1 would like for you to review what we view as the responsibilities of the developer, and should
they come forward with building permits in regards to these different applications? Could we
review the map of existing levels of service so the viewing audience and we could have a
clear understanding?
An exhibit is attached with this response that summarizes both the current minimum street
improvement requirements and the developer's proposed improvements. Please review to
compare the level of increased improvements that are proposed. The developer's commitment
is to complete all proposed improvements in one phase for the opening of Fellowship Bible
Church (FBC).
Two additional exhibits are also attached with to illustrate levels of service at intersections.
One exhibit indicates the existing levels of service with current traffic volumes and the
proposed zoning changes for the Whisenhunt properties. The other exhibit indicates the
projected levels of service with full build -out of the study area and the proposed Whisenhunt
zoning changes. The resulting levels of service with the proposed improvements will improve
present conditions as well as future conditions for anticipated growth. The full traffic study also
indicates that future levels of service at these intersections will be less or failing without these
proposed improvements, even if no future zoning changes area made in the area.
3. As you understand the zoning ordinance, is there anything that would allow us to ask the
applicant to do more if traffic has changed? If there is additional traffic, is there an additional
requirement that maybe we are not aware of right now that would be necessitated because of
growth in the area? It's a tremendous growing area not just by commercial development but
by residential development as well. What if something changes and more would need to be
done? As you read the zoning ordinance now, is there anything that we could then ask the
applicant to do? Or are we going to have to agree with what they are agreeing to do now is
sufficient 2, 3, 5 years from now what ever it might be?
G: 2006\06-115\Planning\06115j.doc
The City has the right to ask for Master Street Plan improvements and right-of-way in
conjunction with PZD plan approvals under the Zoning and Master Street Plan ordinances.
Therefore, if the anticipated traffic conditions have changed and the City responds by
increasing Master Street Plan standards in the area, then the future development would be
subject to any additional requirements at the time PZD plan approvals are requested. The
current proposal for improvements has been designed to provide improved levels of service
with the subject zoning changes and anticipated future background growth.
4. (To Tom Carpenter) Is their anything in the ordinance that will allow us to take into account
future traffic studies or other things that could modify what we expect the developer to do in
regards to infrastructure improvements?
As previously stated, the City has the right to modify Master Street Plan standards and the
proposed developments would be subject to any additional requirements at the time PZD plan
approvals are requested.
KUMPURIS
1. When your group sits and looks at this area to decide on capacity that we need to have for the
future, do we look at the geographic area? Do we need to think about what size entity they
can put on their site? Not the kind of thing, but what sort of generator it is. We have 4 big
tracts and no idea what is going on them. We have no limit on the activity that can go on there,
so it makes it harder for me to know that what the developer is offering is sufficient or
insufficient. I don't know if we need to look at these blocks of land or go out miles and miles.
What I need from you is to give some assurance that we are taking a broad enough look at the
area, and secondly if we ought to say on these 4 tracts if we pass this, that you can put what
you want, but only so much traffic can come in and out of there? I don't know if the study has
gone out far enough. Do we need to say that you can have X -number of trips?
Yes, the surrounding area is included in the traffic study as described in item ?? below.
The development density of undeveloped land is assumed based on historic development
densities for the existing and planned land uses.
There are three PZD areas in the subject group of applications. The use groups and maximum
development densities are limited in the in the application materials and Planning Commission
minutes.
The traffic study area is substantially larger than the typical study area to provide more context
for more accurate assessments of levels of service based on the proposed improvements.
Land use is not determined based on user trip generation, land use decisions are made in
consideration of existing and proposed conditions of land use as well as existing and
proposed street and infrastructure considerations. Little Rock has historically located
commercial land use in areas where larger streets intersect to insure adequate access and
capacity to handle generated traffic.
2. We are doing something that has never been done before, and that is giving a blanket
approval for 4 different tracts that we don't know what is going to be there, and we don't look
further out. How do we really know that we are really planning for the worst-case scenario? It
sounds to me there are tremendous variables in this that could change things appreciably.
There are three PZD proposal areas for that have been presented for consideration. They are
all Conceptual PZD applications which define the usage by zoning classification groups and
floor area density ratios for each area. They are detailed in our PZD application materials and
briefly summarized as follows:
Shackleford Farms Long Form POD: This tract is approximately 10 acres and is located north
of Wellington Hills Road and south of the FBC property. The proposed mix of use is 70%
G: 2006\06-115\Planning\06115j.doc
office and 30% commercial and the proposed uses are defined as 0-2 and C-2 uses. The
proposed density for development is 20,000 SF per acre for office uses and 10,000 SF for
commercial uses.
Shackleford Farms Long Form PCD: This tract is approximately 30 acres and is located south
of Wellington Hills Road and east of Kirk Road. The proposed mix of use is 70% commercial
and 30% office and the proposed uses are defined as C-2 and 0-2 uses. The proposed
density for development is 10,000 SF per acre for commercial uses and 20,000 SF per acre
for office uses.
Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long Form PCD: This tract is approximately 30.8 acres and is
located south of Chenal Parkway west of Kirk Road. The proposed mix of use is 85%
commercial and 15% office and the proposed uses are defined as C-2 and 0-2 uses. The
proposed density for development is 12,000 5F per acre for commercial and office uses.
In addition to the above framework, there are maximum building areas stated for office and
commercial use, maximum building areas for restaurant use, and defined locations for
possible out parcel lots.
ADCOCK
1. When would the applicant start street the improvements?
Mid -July of 2006.
2. When will the street improvements be completed?
The fall of 2007
3. When does Fellowship Bible Church plan on opening?
No later than the end of February 2008.
HURST
1. Does the 2006 traffic study assume full build -out, not just of the potential new
development of the applications before us, but from what is already there, for
example Kroger?
Yes. The current traffic study assumed full build -out in an 1100 acre study area, as well as 10
year background growth of traffic from outside the study area. The current study analyzes
both existing and proposed land use changes in the 1100 acre study area under the full build-
out and 10 year background growth assumptions.
2. Did the traffic study take into account traffic that will be increasing
throughout the area and continuing to use those roads?
Yes. The 2006 study considered and included the contribution of through traffic (traffic from
outside the study area) within the subject study areas.
3. Can you reconcile the discrepancies between traffic volume projected by the
1996 study and traffic volumes projected by the current study?
G: 2006\06-115\Planning\06115j.doc
Yes. The 1996 study did not assume or assess Rahling Road as an available traffic corridor,
nor did it assume or assess the Kirk and Wellington connections to Rahling Road. Further,
the 1996 assumed a higher development density for office uses than has actually developed
along the Chenal corridor.
When the difference in assumptions between the 1996 and 2006 studies are reconciled, the
projected future traffic volumes on Chenal under the 1996 study are very close to the
projected future traffic volumes under the current study.
4. How do you determine the area or region to be used for a traffic study?
Traffic studies are normally site specific and account only for the development in question and
contiguous area background growth. At the request of this developer, the current study takes
in a much larger area (1100 acres) for context in the study and provides a more accurate
picture of projected future traffic conditions.
WYRICK
1. Bill, I guess you worked with the planning staff and looked at the zoning past this area. Do you
ever coordinate with the planning staff?
ANSWERED BY BILL HENRY ?
2. When is the last time we did an update to the land -use map and zoning map in this area?
ANSWERED BY TONY BOZYNSKI
3. Did the consultant look at the current land -use map to see what we predict is going to happen
in the area surrounding, or is it a mathematical engineering thing you do?
Yes, the traffic study is based on the current future land use plan classifications.
4. How do you predict Kanis from Chenal to Denny will grow land -use wise?
ANSWERED BY TONY BOZYNSKI
Please contact me if you have any questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Whisenhunt Investments
Doug Robertson
G: 2006\06-115\Planning\06115j.doc
m
EDWARD L. WRIGHT
(1903-1977)
ROBERT S. LINDSEY
(1913-1991)
ALSTON JENNINGS
(]917-2004)
G
JOHN . L1LE
CORDON S. RATHER, 1R.
MARTIN G. GILBERT
ROGER A, GLASGOW
ALSTON JENNINGS, 1R.
JOHN R. TISD A LE
JOHN WILL IAMSPIVEY III
LEE J. MULDR0W
N.M. NORTON
CHARLES C. PRICE I
CHARLES T. COLEMAN
JAMES J. GLOVER
EDWIN L.LOWTHER, JR.
GREGORY T. JONES 2
BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN 3
WALTER McSPADDEN
JOHN D. DAVIS
JUDY SIMMONS HENRY
KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER
RAY F. COX, JR.8
TROY A. PRICE
PATRICIA SIEVERS HARRIS
KATHRYN A. PRYOR
J. MARK DAVIS 3
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 1300
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699
(501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442
903 NORTH 47TH STREET, SUITE 101
ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756
(479) 986-0899 FAX (479) 986-8932
WWW.WIj.com
OF COUNSEL
RONALD A. MAY
ISAAC A.SCOTT, 1R.
BRUCE R. LINDSEY 2
JAMES R. VAN DOVER
R. SCOTT SUMMERS 7
Writer's Direct Diel No. 501-212-1310
jspivey®wlj.com
Reply to Little Rock Office
June 26, 2006
Hon. Vice Mayor Barbara Graves
Members of the Board of Directors
City of Little Rock
City Hall of Little Rock, Arkansas
RE: Future of Chenal Valley and West Little Rock
Ladies and Gentlemen:
CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK 4
JERRY J. SALLINGS
WILLIAM STUART JACKSON
MICHAEL D. BARNES
STEPHEN R. LANCASTER
JUDY ROBINSON WILBER
KYLE R. WILSON
C. TAD 13OHANNON 3
J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY 8
M. SEAN HATCH
J. ANDREW VINES
JUSTIN T. ALLEN
MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING 5
SCOTT ANDREW IRBY
PATRICK D. WILSON
REGINA A. YOUNG
BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD
PAUL D. MORRIS
EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG
EVA C. MADISON 6
DAWN D.JACKSON
CALEY B. VO
COLIN R. JORGENSEN
GARY D. MARTS, JR.
ERIC BERGER
MARK N. OHRENBERGER
Also licenced to Practice in
I Michigan
2 District of Columbia
3 Texas
4 Neu, York
5 North Carolina
6 Ok laharna and Tennessee
7 Kentucky
8 Licensed to practice before the United
States Patent and Trademark Office
On behalf of Deltic Timber Corporation, Chenal Valley Municipal Property Owners
Multipurpose Improvement District No. 4 of the City of Little Rock and Chenal Valley
Municipal Property Owners Multipurpose Improvement District No. 10 of the City of Little
Rock, we wish to reiterate the concerns raised in our letter of May 25, 2006 addressed to the
Little Rock Planning Commission and our letter of June 20, 2006 addressed to you. It is our
further purpose in this letter to provide you with specific demonstrations of why we believe
that further extensive review, research, planning and design of improvements to Chenal
Parkway and related intersections and arterial streets must be accomplished if these roadways
are to remain useful, functioning corridors to the western neighborhoods of the city.
We have previously brought to your attention our concern that the three "conceptual" planned
developments proposed for approval at your meeting of Tuesday, June 27, 2006, will at full
development have a major adverse impact upon traffic patterns in west Little Rock. To be
sure, to be fully appreciated the impact of the subject planned developments must be viewed in
the context of not only existing traffic conditions but other proposed developments of Deltic
and, perhaps, other landowners and developers. Nevertheless, if only dealt with on an
incremental basis, the improvements necessary to insure the efficient functioning of Chenal
Parkway will be made in a haphazard, piecemeal manner, if at all.
646217-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
June 26, 2006
Page 2
A great deal has been said about "traffic studies" and "traffic reports." Each of the City,
Whisenhunt Investments and Deltic has relied heavily, if not exclusively, upon the expert work
of Peters & Associates Engineers, Inc., as personified by Mr. Ernie Peters. Although a
history of how each traffic report was prepared, when it was introduced and why there seems
to have been so much confusion concerning the sometimes conflicting findings among the
various reports might be useful, we have elected instead to focus your attention on a few points
which we believe may be significant to your discussions on Tuesday, June 27th.
A. None of the traffic studies or the various scenarios set forth in the traffic studies
prepared by Mr. Peters and presented to the City staff and the Planning Commission prior to
May 25th, is based upon a "full build -out" of the three "conceptual" planned developments
presented by Whisenhunt Investments. Attached as Exhibit "A" to this letter is a copy of a
table taken from the April 4th traffic study presented by Whisenhunt Investments in support of
the three "conceptual" planned developments which illustrates Mr. Peters' Trip Generation
Data. Tract numbers 2, and 15 represent the uses considered by Mr. Peters on the three
Whisenhunt tracts. Together these uses represent a total of approximately 389,900 square feet
of commercial space and approximately 209,000 square feet of office space. The ordinances
before you on June 27th, if approved, will collectively authorize the development of up to
556,500 square feet of commercial space and up to 377,500 square feet of office space.
Otherwise stated, if approved the ordinances will authorize the development of approximately
56% more building or use than is covered in the supporting traffic study.
B. If the supporting traffic study understates the impact of the area to be developed,
then its conclusions must also understate the full impact of the development on levels of service
at the various intersections located in the area covered by the study. Exhibit "B" to this letter
is taken from the Addendum dated May 24th to both the April 4th Whisenhunt Study and a
second study dated April 26th prepared by Mr. Peters at the request of Deltic. This table
presents, among other information, the projected Ten Year Future Traffic Conditions for each
of the five scenarios presented to the Planning Commission on May 25th. Although each of
the five scenarios shown take into consideration various combinations of assumptions, none of
these five scenarios presents a "full build -out" analysis which also takes into account both the
Deltic proposed developments and other approved but as yet undeveloped uses within the study
area.
C. At the request of Deltic, Mr. Peters prepared yet another scenario which he has
labeled "Scenario 3B." The information in Scenario 3B which was requested by Deltic on or
about May 11th, was not delivered to Deltic until June 8th, subsequent to the May 25th
Planning Commission meeting. To the best of Deltic's knowledge and belief, this information
has not previously been presented to or considered by the City staff, although Deltic believes
that the staff is aware of the possible deficiencies in the May 24th information. Scenario 3B
646217-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
June 26, 2006
Page 3
assumes a "full build -out" of the available commercial and office space contained within
Whisenhunt Investments' three "conceptual" planned developments, as well as the proposed
Deltic uses and the undeveloped portion of the Dairyland Planned Commercial Development
which was omitted from both the April 4th traffic study and the May 24th addendum. The
highlighted items found in Exhibit "C" labeled by Mr. Peters' "Projected Full -Build Land Use
Plan" illustrate, as Mr. Peters' footnote suggests, the "Whisenhunt tracts .... assumed Max.
Use Allowed. " The total Twenty -Four Hour Two -Way Weekly Volume is approximately 16.4
percent greater than presented in the April 4th study and approximately 9.6 percent greater
than presented to the Planning Commission on May 24th.
D. Exhibit "D" to this letter has been labeled by Mr. Peters as the "Projected Full
Build Future Traffic Conditions (at) PM Peak Hour." You will note that with respect to each
of the intersections at Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway, Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road,
Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road East, Kirk Road and Wellington Hills Road and Rahling
Road (extension) and Kanis Road, the level of service deteriorates below that considered by the
City Staff prior to May 24th.
E. Exhibit "E" is a table prepared by White Daters Engineers, Inc., which
compares the projected delays (in seconds) at each of the Chenal Parkway intersections in
Scenario 1 presented in the April 4th Traffic Study and the May 24th Addendum, and Mr.
Peters' "full build -out" Scenario 3B. While it is evident from this comparison that the delays
to be experienced by travelers are projected to decrease at certain intersections for certain
hours of the day, the average delay experienced by motorists will increase between 38 percent
and 58 percent through this section of the Parkway. Depending upon the hour of travel and the
direction, the time to travel from Rahling Road to Kanis East could be delayed over ten
minutes.
F. Finally, Deltic's engineers have reviewed the information contained in the
June 9, 2006, Memorandum from City Manager Bruce Moore to the Directors and, in
particular, the table set forth on page 5 of that Memorandum. They have been unable to tie
these projections to any empirical information contained in any of Mr. Peters' studies and have
consulted Mr. Peters for an explanation of the basis for these projections. Upon further
reflection, Mr. Peters has informed Deltic and its engineers that the City should have used the
peak hour volumes shown on Scenarios 1-4 of the May 24 Traffic Addendum. However, he is
unable to confirm that these are in fact the bases for the City's calculations. He has told us that
when he uses the total increase in peak hour volumes for each of the Whisenhunt and Deltic
changes as compared to the whole of as yet undeveloped property in his study area, he arrives
at the following calculations:
646217-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
June 26, 2006
Page 4
Whisenhunt Changes:
Peak Hour: + 1048
24 Hour: + 13327
Deltic Changes:
Peak Hour: + 448
24 Hour: +7044
10.4 % increase in volume
10.5 % increase in volume
4.8 % increase in volume
5.5 % increase in volume
These illustrations may not be conclusive evidence of future traffic congestion beyond that
which has been considered by the City Staff or which was considered by the Planning
Commission prior to last Tuesday's Board meeting. There are other data contained in the
various traffic studies such as the length of the "traffic queue" at each intersection and the
length of the queue in left-hand turn lanes as compared to the length of the City's standard left-
hand turn lane which seem to suggest the probability of even greater congestion and delays and
lower levels of service than previously presented for the City's consideration. Based upon this
information you might reasonably conclude the following:
1. The service levels at a number of the intersections studied are already at
unacceptably low levels and at "full build -out" others will deteriorate to
unacceptable levels.
2. Without closely comparing Mr. Peters' data and assumptions to the plan of
street improvements finally negotiated with the developer, there is no way to
know if the improvements which are proposed will be sufficient to address the
issues raised by the various Traffic Studies.
3. Delays experienced by those who depend upon the Chenal Parkway as a vital
link between work and home, between home and school, between home and
worship, and home and shopping, will lengthen. The days when one might
reasonably expect to move from Kanis East to the Rahling Road intersection in a
few short minutes are numbered.
4. A number of these critical intersections, if not the entire length of the area
studied, will become choke points for traffic along the Chenal corridor.
5. Without proper planning and development, the wide tree -lined and landscaped
medians of Chenal Parkway will give way to the narrow unlandscaped rock
strewn curb which presently separates the east and west lanes of Chenal
646217-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
June 26, 2006
Page 5
Parkway from Kanis East to Kirk Road. No longer will Chenal Parkway truly
be a parkway.
6. The City must be a participant along with private landowners and developers in
the development of the necessary infrastructure described in Mr. Peters' various
traffic studies if Chenal Parkway is to remain a viable conduit for traffic through
Chenal Valley. Particular attention must be given to reconstruction of the
intersections at Chenal Parkway and LaGrande/Arkansas Systems Drive, at
Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road and, ultimately, at Chenal Parkway and
Kanis East. In addition, it is imperative that a full six through lanes of traffic be
constructed from the intersection of Wellington Hills Road and Chenal Parkway
through the intersection at Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road at a minimum.
Without these improvements, the further deterioration of levels of service
through this stretch of Chenal Parkway is an absolute certainty.
It is in Deltic's opinion unfortunate that the action proposed to be taken by the Board on
Tuesday, June 27th will not be broad enough in scope to address the daunting challenges facing
Chenal Parkway and the Chenal Valley area. Deltic has repeatedly asked the City to delay
consideration of further land use changes and re -zonings pending a comprehensive study and
plan for traffic improvements to Chenal Parkway. It is Deltic's sincere hope that the City,
Whisenhunt Investments and other landowners and developers will give serious consideration
to the creation of a task force or study group which will develop plans and alternatives for
addressing these challenges.
The necessary time exists before conditions become intolerable, however, the effort must begin
immediately.
Respectfully presented,
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
J William Spivey III
Attachment(s)
646217-vl
EXHIBIT "A"
P1180
LLOle Rork_ Ark-
TRACT
REFERENCE
,.
PROPOSED
LAND USE SIZE
24-HOUR
TWO-WAY
VOLUME
WEEKDAY
PM PEAK HOUR
ENTER EXIT
Tract 1
Church
50 Acres
2,733
102
96
Tract 2
Retail Commercial
General Office
209,000 S.F.
209,000 S.F.
8,974
2,301
376
52
408
259
Tract 3
Single Family Detached Housing
84 Lots
804
54
31
Tract 4
Single Family Detached Housing
20 Lots
191
13
7
Tract 5
Retail Neighbornood Commercial
48,000 S.F.
2,061
86
94
Tract 6
Retail Commercial (Auto Dealership)
64,000 S.F.
2,134
66
103
Tract 7
General Office
100,600 S.F.
1,108
25
125
Tract 8
Retail Commercial (Auto Dealership)
42,000 S.F.
1,400
43
68
'Tract 9
Retail Commercial
63,600 S.F.
2,731
114
124
'Tract 10
Retail Commercial
87,000 S.F.
3,736
157
170
Tract 11
Retail Commercial
24,000 S.F.
1,031
43
47
Tract 12
General Office
24,600 S.F.
271
6
31
Tract 13
Retail Commercial
124,000 S.F.
5,325
223
242
'Tract -:14 -:-:-..Retail
Commercial-: -.::: - : _:: :. _..
68,400-S.F.. •
_,--2,937
F 123 . -
133 --
Tract 15
Retail Commercial
180,000 S.F.
7,729
324
351
Tract 16
Public Institution
86,000 S.F.
783
29
28
Tract 17
Retail Commercial
145,000 S.F.
6,226
261
283
Tract 18
Multi -Family Attached Units
120 Units
806
48
26
Tract19---yulb-Family_Attached-Units-- - ----120-Units------$lab----1_48-1-26w-
---48.-
_26__.'Tract
'Tract20
Multi -Family Attached Units
176 Units
1,183
70
39
Tract 21
Retail Commercial
General Office
113,000 S.F.
113,000 S.F.
4,842
1;244
203
28
220
140
Tract 22
General Office
45,000 S.F.
495
11
56
Tract 23
Retail Commercial
503,388 S.F.
21,615
906
982
Tract 24
General Office
111,000 S.F.
1,222
28
138
Tract 25
Single Family Detached Housing
18 Lots
172
12
7
Tract 26
Retail Commercial
111,500 S.F.
4,788
201
217
Tract 27
Retail Commercial
74,000 S.F.
3,178
133
144
Tract 28
Retail Commercial
30,000 S.F.
1,288
54
59
Tract 29
General Office
212,000 S.F.
2,334
53
263
Tract 30
Multi -Family Attached Units
248 Units
1,667
99
55
Tract 31
Multi -Family Attached Units
152 Units
1,021
61
33
Tract 32
Retail Commercial
General Office
29,000 S.F:
29,000 SF.
1,245
319
52
7
57
36
Tract 33
Retail Neighbornood Commercial
18,000 S.F.
773
32
35
Tract 34
Retail Commercial
General Office
25,000 S.F.
25,000 S.F.
1,074
275
45
6
49
31
Tract 35
Single Family Detached Housing
20 Lots
191
13
7
Tract 36
Single Family Detached Housing
108 Lots
1,034
69
40
Tract 37
General Office
43,000 S.F.
473
11
53
Tract 38
Retail Neighbornood Commercial
56,000 S.F.
2,405
101
109
Tract 39
Multi -Family Attached Units
58 Units
390
23
13
Tract 40
General Office
100,000 S.F.
1,101
25
124
Tract 41
Retail Commercial
164,000 S.F.
7,042
295
320
'Tract 42
General Office
218,000 S.F.
2,400
55
270
'Tract 43
Single Family Detached Housing
205 Lots
1962
131
76
TOTALS:
TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING
Trip Generation Summary - Development Tracts
EXHIBIT "B"
•.,�
F07 -URE TRAFFIC
PM PEAK
Scenario 1
CONDITIONS
HOUR
55.7
e - --
�;;=�_
93.8%
E
Scenario 2
73.9
1P7.596
E
:Scenario 3
63.7
98.3%
E
:Scenario 3-A
36.6
83.6%
D
Scc�nariv 4
Scenario 1
62.3
1, 1:35.0
97.0%
111.4%
E
F
Scenario 2
157.6
117.3%
F
Scenario 3
772.4
120.1)
F
:Scenario 3-A
62.1
972%
F
Scenario 4
Scenario 1
146.7
19.111
113.0%
76:0%
F
B
;Scenado2
19,3
81.5%
B
Scennno 3
23.7
87.7%
C
Scenario 3-A
19.5
87.7%
B
Scenario 4
i.y and
Scenario 1
26.1
Kirk Road jTraffir Signal Ccmtml)
27,8
65.8%
782%
C
C
Scenario 2
30.6
812%
C
Scenario 3
32-4
88.0%
C
Scenario 3,A
24,9
84.0%
C
Scenario 4
Scenario 1
30.0
41:9
84-556
932%
C
D
Scenario 2
58.5
98.3%
E
Scenario 3
75.0
101.7%
E
Scenario 3-A
28.6
83.9%
C
Scenarios•9.7:fiYo-��
Scenario 1
, 40:.8
::.
80-3%
Scenario 2
42-9
82.4%
D
Scenario 3
45-5
86.7%
D
Scenario 3,A
26-7
.70.3%
C
ScenarinA
FIRM
-Scerisrio'F.-1
42.5 82.5%
-=�4:3,--�^ui2%
D
•B
Scenario 2
17.3
31.6%
6
:Scenario 3
11.3
33.4%
B
Scenario 3-A
9.4
33.4%
A
Scenario 4
Scenario 1
11.3
8.6
32-0%
1 33.6%
B
A
:Scenario 2
8.9
342%
A
:Scenario3
6�
38.1%
A
Scemno 3-A
7.9
38.1%
A
Scennrlo a
Scenaro 1
9.0
9.0
37.4%
57.0%
A
A
Sr-enana 2
6.7
55.0%
A
Scenario 3
9.6
76.0%
A
scenario 3-A
9.6
76.0%
A
Scenario 4
Scenario 11
9.3
11.11
70.0%
49.9%
A
n)e
Scenario 2
1.1
50.9%
nli�
Scenario 3
1.2
52.0%
rile
Scenario 3-A
1.2
52.0%
rile
Scenario 4
Road and Champlin
scenario 1
12
Drive (Traffic Sii"l Control)
21.9
50.9%
65.6%
nla
C
Scenario 2
22.7
66.9%
C
Scenario 3
32.6
74.9%
C
Scenario 3-A32.6
74.9%
G
SUN no 4
Kirk Road and Pride
Scenario 1
23.7
Valley Road (*'StW Sign I
5.3
67.1% .
28.5%
C
No
Scenario 2
5.6
29.3%
Ne
Scenario 3
5.8
30.4%
n/e
:Scenario 3-A
5.8
30.4%
rile
Scenario 4
Scenario 1 1
5.5
11.0
29.6%
30.5%
rus
B
Scenario 2
15.0
31.7%
B
Sccnano 3
9.0
32.3%
7+
Scenario 3-A
9.4
32.3%
A
Scenario 4
Scanaria 1 1
7.6
16-01
30.9%
62.9%'
A
B
Scam do 2
15.3
69.5%
8
Scenario 3
19.6
- 74.2%
$
Scenario 3-A
19.6
742%
B
Scenario 4
18.1
67.6%
B
EXHIBIT "C."
LialeAocA', Arkansas _
H
Proposed Fu[! -build !`and -Use Plan � , PM '
Trip Generation Summary - Development Tracts
Tract 1*
Church
50 Acres
2,733 -
102
96
Tract 2*
Retail Commercial
General Office
242,000 S.F.
322,000 S.F.
10,391
3,545
436
81
472
399
Tract 3
Single Famlly Detached Housing
84 Lots
804
54
31
Tract 4
single Family Detached Housing
20 Lots
191
13
7
Tract 5
Retail Nelghbornood Commercial
48,000 S.F.
2,061
86
94
Tract 6
Retail Commercial (Auto Dealershi
64,000 S.F.
2,134
66
103
Tract 7
General Office
106,500 S.F.
1,108
2S
125
Tract 8
Retail Commercial (Auto Dealership)
42,000 S.F.
1,400
43
68
Tract 9
Retail Commercial
63,606 S.F.
2,731
114
124
Tract 10
Retail Commercial
87,000 S.F.
3,736
157
170
Tract 11
Retail Commercial
24,000 S.F.
1,031
43
47
Tract 12
General Office
24,600 S.F.
271
6
31
Tract 13
Retail Commercial
124,000 S:F.
5,325
223
242
Tract 14*
Retail Commercial
141,000 S.F.
6,055
254
275
Tract 15*
Retail Commercial
General office
314,500 S.F.
55,590 S.F.
13,505
611
566
14
613
69
Tract 16
Public Institution
86,000 S.F.
783
29
28
-
TracF1-7
_ Wil Commerical__-
I45;000 -5L.
-6,22&-- -
-261---
283
Tract 18
Multi -Family Attached Units
120 Units
806
48
26
Tract 19
Multi -Family Attached Units
120 Units
806
48
26
Tract 20
Multi -Family Attached_ Units
Retail Commercial
110 Units
75,000 S.F.
739
44
24
3,221
135
146
Tract 21
Retail Commercial
General Office
98,000 S.F.
4,208
176 191
_
Tract 22
General Office
45,000 S.F.
495
11
56
Tract 23
Retail Commercial
503,388 S.F.
21,615
906
982
Tracts 24, 25, 26
Single Family Detached Housing
Single Family Detached Housing
General Office
Retail Commercial
Retail Commercial
Multi -Family Attached Units
21 Lots
18 Lots
17,000 S.F.
60,000 S.F.
90,000 S.F.
72 Units
201
172
187
2,576
3,865
484
13
12
4
108
162
29
8
7
21
117
176
16
Tract 27
Retail Commercial
74,000 S.F.
3,178
133
144
Tract 28
Retail Commercial
30,400 S.F.
1,288
54
59
Tract 29
General Office
212,000 S.F.
2,334
53
263
Tract 30
Multi-Famlly Attached Units
248 Units
1,667
99
55
Tract 31*
Multi -Family Attached Units
152 Units
1,021
61
33
Tract 32
Retail Commercial
Retail Commercial
Retail Commercial
6,000 S.F.
32,000 S.F.
22,000 S.F.
258
1,374
945
11
58
40
12
62
43
Tract 33
Retail Neighbamood Commercial
18,600 S.F.
773
32
35
Tract 34
Retail Commercial
General Office
25,000 S.F.
25,000 S.F.
1,074
275
45
6
49
31
Tract 35
single Family Detached Housing
20 Lots
191
13
7
Tract 36
Single Famlly Detached Housing
108 Lots
1,034
69
40
Tract 37
General Office
43,000 S.F.
473
11
53
Tract 38
Retail Nei hbornood Commercial
56,000 S.F.
2,405
101
109
Tract 39
Multi -Family Attached Units
58 Units
390
23
13
Tract 40
Retail Commercial
100,000 S.F.
4,294
180
195
'Tract 41
Retail Commercial
164,000 S.F.
7,042
295
320
Tract 42
General Office
218,D00 S.F.
2,400
55
270
Tract 43
Single Family Detached Housing
205 Lots
1,962
131
76
TOTAL PM PEAK HOUR ENTERING + EXITING
Whisenhunt Tracts are assumed Max. Use Allowed.
Trip Generation Summary - Development Tracts
Includes Whisenhunt Max.
(Includes Whisenhunt Max.
55.7
63.7
ses) 80.9
km -
135.0
172.4
ses) 189.1
19.1
23.7
(Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses) 27:5
(Includes Whisenhunt Max.
(Includes Whisenhunt Max.
27.8
32.4
ses} 40.1
75.0
,;PSI 92.1
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
•law 11�
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses
•
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
•
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
•
1 For Exislin2 Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
1 For Existino Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-13 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
*Roundabout could be considered for this intersection.
45.5
10.9
11.3
11.5
0
8.6
8.9
9.2
9.0
9.8
10.6
1.1
1.2
1.4
21.9
32.6
24.9
m
5.3
5.8
6.0
m
11.0
9.0
9.0
m
16.0
19.6
20.7
EXHIBIT "D"
93.89'°
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
98.3%
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Chi
105.9%
3-13 With Proposed Land Use Plan Ch:
111.4%
F
120.9%
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
125.0%
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Cha
76:0%
3-B Wilh Proposed Land Use Plan Cha
87.7%
C
90.2%
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
78.2%
3 'With Proposed Land Use Plan Cha
88.0%
3-13 With Proposed Land Use Plan Cha
91 A%
•
-932°la--_.�-�p.�.-�_....,---•
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
101.7%
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Cha
105.2%
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Ch.
80.3%
•
86.7%
Par ExistingLand=Else=Plan,-
30.8%
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Cha
30.5%
3-13 With Proposed Land Use Plan Chi
32.3%
•
32.3%
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
62.9%
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Cha
Includes Whisenhunt Max.
(Includes Whisenhunt Max.
55.7
63.7
ses) 80.9
km -
135.0
172.4
ses) 189.1
19.1
23.7
(Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses) 27:5
(Includes Whisenhunt Max.
(Includes Whisenhunt Max.
27.8
32.4
ses} 40.1
75.0
,;PSI 92.1
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
•law 11�
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses
•
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
•
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
•
1 For Exislin2 Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
1 For Existing Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-B With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
1 For Existino Land Use Plan
3 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes
3-13 With Proposed Land Use Plan Changes (Includes Whisenhunt Max. Uses)
*Roundabout could be considered for this intersection.
45.5
10.9
11.3
11.5
0
8.6
8.9
9.2
9.0
9.8
10.6
1.1
1.2
1.4
21.9
32.6
24.9
m
5.3
5.8
6.0
m
11.0
9.0
9.0
m
16.0
19.6
20.7
EXHIBIT "D"
93.89'°
E
98.3%
E
105.9%
F
111.4%
F
120.9%
F
125.0%
F
76:0%
B
87.7%
C
90.2%
C
78.2%
C
88.0%
C
91 A%
D
-932°la--_.�-�p.�.-�_....,---•
-
101.7%
E
105.2%
F
80.3%
0
86.7%
D
30.2%
B
33.4%
B
35.0%
B
33.6%
A
38.1%
A
39.4%
A
57.0%
A
76.0%
A
88.0"%
B
49.9%
n/a
52.0%
n/a
55.1%
n/a
86.8%
C
74.9%
C
71,2°1°
C
28.5%
nla
30.4%
n/a
30.8%
n/a
30.5%
B
32.3%
A
32.3%
A
62.9%
B
74.2%
B
77.5%
C
EXHIBIT "E"
3
Comparison of Total Intersection Dela
From Peter's studies dated 5/30/06 and 6/8/06
Location Total Delay per Vehicle During Peak PM Hour
Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road
Existing (1) 721 Seconds
Max Allowable (3b) 1142 Seconds
58% Increase
Chenal Parkway and LaGrande
Existing (1)
1180 Seconds
Max Allowable (3b)
1624 Seconds
38% Increase
_
-- - -Chenal Parkway and Kanis West
Existing (1)
192 Seconds
Max Allowable (3b)
274 Seconds
43% Increase
Chenal Parkway and Kirk
Existing (1)
539 Seconds
Max Allowable (3b)
785 Seconds
46% Increase
Chenal Parkway and Kanis East
Existing (1) 783 Seconds
Max Allowable (3b) 1094 Seconds
40% Increase
Chenal Parkway and Villages of Wellington
Existing (1) 804 Seconds
Max Allowable (3b) 1231 Seconds
53% Increase
EDWARD L. WRIGHT
(1903-1977)
ROBERT S.LINDSEY
(1913-1991)
ALSTON JENNINGS
(1917-2004)
JOHN G. LILE
GORDON S. RATHER, JR.
MARTIN G. GILBERT
ROGER A. GLASGOW
ALSTON JENNINGS, JR.
JOHN R. TISDALE
JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III
LEE J. MULDROW
N,M. NORTON
CHARLES C. PRICE I
CHARLES T. COLEMAN
JAMES J. GLOVER
EDWIN L. LOWTHER, 1R.
GREGORY T. JONES 2
BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN 3
WALTER McSPADDEN
JOHN D. DAVIS
JUDY SIMMONS HENRY
KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER
RAY F. COX, JR.8
TROYA. PRICE
PATR I CIA SIEVERS HARRIS
KATHRYN A. PRYOR
J. MARK DAVIS 3
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
200WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699
(501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442
903 NORTH 47TH STREET. SUITE 101
ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756
(479) 986-0888 FAX (479) 986-8932
www.wlj.com
OF COUNSEL
RONALD A. MAY
ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR.
BRUCE R. LINDSEY 2
JAMES R. VAN DOVER
R. SCOTT SUMMERS 7
Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310
jspivey®wlj.com
Reply to Little Rock Office
May 25, 2006
Honorable Robert Stebbins
Chairman and Members
Little Rock Planning Commission
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Mr. Tony Bozynski
Director, Department of
Neighborhoods & Planning
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: West Little Rock Land use Changes and Rezoning
Ladies and Gentlemen:
CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK 4
JERRY J. SALLINGS
WILLIAM STUART JACKSON
MICHAEL D. BARNES
STEPHEN R. LANCASTER
JUDY ROBINSON WILBER
KYLE R,WILSON
C. TAD BOHANNON 3
KRISTI M. MOODY
1. CHARLES DOUGHERTY 8
M. SEAN HATCH
J. ANDREW VINES
JUSTIN T. ALLEN
MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING 5
SCOTT ANDREW IRBY
PATRICK D. WILSON
REGINA A. YOUNG
ERIKA ROSS GEE
BLAKE S. RUTHERFORD
PAUL D. MORRIS
EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG
EVA C. MADISON 6
DAWN D. JACKSON
CALEY B. VO
COLIN R. JORGENSEN
GARY D. MARTS, JR.
ERIC BERGER
MARK N. OHRENBERGER
Also licensed to Practice in
I Michigan
2 District of Colambio
3 Texas
4 Neu, York
5 North Carolina
6 Oklahoma and Tennessee
7 Kentucky
8 Licensed to practice before the United
States Patent and Trademark Office
Mr. Steve Haralson
Director,
Department of Public Works
701 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Ms. Cindy Dawson
Assistant City Attorney
City Hall
500 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
We are attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation ("Deltic"), Chenal Valley Municipal Property
Owners Multipurpose Improvement District No. 4 of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas ("District
No. 4") and Chenal Valley Municipal Property Owners Multipurpose Improvement District No. 10
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas ("District No. 10") and in this capacity we address you today
for the purpose of calling to your attention what we believe to be are serious public policy concerns
raised by your consideration of a number of pending land use changes and rezoning requests in the
areas served by Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road in West Little Rock. Specifically, these items
appear upon the Planning Commission agenda for the meeting today, Thursday, May 25, 2006.
Over the past several weeks we have raised on behalf of our clients a number of concerns about the
capacity of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road, both of which were constructed - with the full
640695-v1
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
May 25, 2006
Page 2
cooperation, participation and partnership of the City of Little Rock, to handle additional traffic
burdens generated through the build out of the properties to be benefited by the land use changes
and rezoning requests before you today.
A number of traffic studies have been developed at the request of the City and the individual
developers which, although inconsistent with one another in many respects, all point to and
illustrate one inescapable conclusion: unless significant planning and development of infrastructure
enhancements, upgrades and improvements along Chenal Parkway and the various major and
minor arterials which intersect it are planned, designed, financed and built, Chenal Parkway will
within a reasonable/forseable time experience unacceptable levels of traffic congestion, long delays
and general dysfunction.
It is our clients' opinion that an insufficient amount of research has been completed to allow the
Planning Commission to accurately understand and respond to these challenges. In particular,
traffic studies requested by the City or developers are yet to be finalized. Therefore, we would
respectfully request the following:
1. That the Planning Commission and City staff pursue to completion the unfinished
traffic study of the affected area including the nature, scope and cost of improvements and
enhancements to the Parkway and intersecting streets and the probable time period within which
such improvements must be made to insure that high levels of service on Chenal Parkway are
maintained.
2. That the Planning Commission affirm its intention to comply with the intent
expressed in Resolution 9158 of the City of Little Rock, a copy of which is attached for your
information concerning the costs of providing for such improvements and the source of payment
therefor.
3. That future land use changes and zoning decisions of the Planning Commission take
into consideration the impact upon the condition of existing infrastructure and the levels of service
provided by adjoining streets and roadways all along Chenal Parkway.
Respectfully submitted,
WRIGHT, LIND,S-,EnY & JENNINGS LLP
Q�L�./vL� 1/J i J.
JWilliam Spivey III
o m
JWS:jlh
Attachment(s)
640695-v1
RESOLUTION NO. 9,158
217
1
A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO ASSURE THAT THE
2 CITIZENS OF LITTLE ROCK WILL NOT HAVE TO
3 INVOLUNTARILY PAY FOR ANY EXPANSION OR
4 WIDENING OF THE CHENAL PARKWAY; AND FOR
5 OTHER PURPOSES.
6
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the City of Little
7 Rock, has heard arguments concerning the right-of-way
8 dedication that should be required for businesses along the
9 Chenal Parkway; and
10 WHEREAS, the developers of the parkway believe that
11 it should be a four -lane road requiring only 100' of
right-of-way dedication, as opposed to a six -lane road
12 requiring 1201 of right-of-way; and
13 WHEREAS, in agreeing to this request the Board of
14 Directors has made it clear that it does not want the
15 citizens of the City of Little Rock to pay for any expansion
16 or widening of the Chenal Parkway occasioned by the increase
in commercial activity along the present parkway boundaries;
17 and
18 WH MEAS, the Board believes it is very possible that
19 the current zoning decisions allowing intense commercial
20 development envisioned a six lane road and, as a result,
there is a very real possibility that continued commercial
21 development will, in the near future, require widening of
22 this road; and
23 WHEREAS, such widening would not only require the
24 City to pay for the cost of the road, but also the cost of
25 the right-of-way.
NOW, rHER FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
26 DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS:
27 SECTION 1: The Board of Directors states its
28 intention that the Chenal Parkway will be a four lane road
29 and that the City will not pursue efforts to increase it to
30 a six lane road despite the provisions of the Master Street
31 Plan.
SECTION 2: The Board of Directors will, absent
32 express voter approval, refuse to fund any expansion or
33 widening of the Chenal Parkway unless the property owners
34 along the parkway dedicate at no cost to the City any
35 necessary right-of-way for such a project and participate
36 I equally in the cost of construction.
r
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
218
SECTIO 3: The Board of Directors states its intent
that if, in any capital improvement bond issue, there are to
be funds for the expansion or widening of Chenal Parkway,
the bond issue shall be voted upon by the people, the
election that proposes the issue shall be set out separately
and shall individually and expressly state the name of the
project and the cost of the proposed improvements, and the
issue shall be accepted or rejected by the voters on its own
merits and not in conjunction with any other issue or
question to be submitted to the voters at such election.
ADOPTED: May 3,.1994
M A•
roadwork to be completed by Whisenhunt is substantial, and includes improving
Chenal Parkway between both intersections where Chenal Parkway intersects
with Kanis Road, as well as the complete construction of the connection of
Wellington Hills Road, Kirk Road, Champlin Drive and Wellington Village Roads.
The end result will be a system of new roads to help disperse existing and future
traffic.
Existina Traffic Patterns:
From its conception in the mid to late 1980's, traffic engineers have envisioned
that Chenal Parkway would likely become one of the busiest traffic corridors in
the City. Since that time, a traffic study in 1996 reached a similar conclusion and
the latest study associated with applications to change land -use and zoning by
Whisenhunt and Deltic Timber (Deltic) has confirmed that prediction.
The land -use plan amendments, conditional use permit and zoning applications
currently before the Board of Directors by Whisenhunt in the vicinity of Kirk Road
and Kanis Road are projected to increase traffic on the Chenal Parkway corridor
after development above that which would occur if the property were developed
according to current zoning and land -use. Projections by Peters & Associates
are that the increases would be approximately 2,000 to 2,500 vehicles per day or
about a 5% - 6% increase in 2016.
As is often the case, any significant traffic increases will be most evident at
intersections. Without improvement, delays at the intersections in the vicinity of
the land would reach undesirable levels regardless of whether the Whisenhunt or
Deltic applications are approved.
As part of their applications, Whisenhunt has proposed a number of road and
intersection improvements that meet or exceed Boundary Street Ordinance
requirements in the vicinity of the development including:
➢ Widening of Kirk Road, north of Chenal Parkway, and an extension of
Kirk Road north to Chaplin Drive.
➢ Intersection improvements at Kirk Road & Chenal Parkway.
➢ The extension of Wellington Hills Road west to Kirk Road and Systems
Drive.
➢ The extension of Wellington Village Road west to Kirk Road.
➢ Adding or extending a third east bound and west bound lane on
Chenal Parkway between the `East Kanis' and `West Kanis'
intersections._
➢ Widening and intersection improvements at the westernmost
intersection of Kanis Road and Chenal Parkway.
Taken as a whole, Public Works Staff believes that the street and intersection
improvements proposed by Whisenhunt will mitigate the increased traffic levels
on Chenal Parkway in the vicinity of the proposed developments resulting from
their applications.
Existing Traffic Counts:
The table below summarizes the historic, current and projected traffic counts in
the area. Existing traffic counts are from a 2004 Metroplan Report, and the
26,500 vehicles per day (vpd) figure is typical for a busy arterial road and is
similar in nature to Cantrell Road, east of Interstate 430, or Barrow Road, south
of Interstate 630. At this traffic level, there are generally no significant delays
from the Chenal Wellington intersection west to the west leg of Kanis Road in the
vicinity of the applications.
The 2016 projection in this table is based on the assumption that traffic will
increase as it has in the past. The projected volume of 47,000 vehicles per day
on Chenal Parkway between the east and west legs of Kanis Road is
comparable to existing traffic on Financial Center Parkway, and Cantrell Road
west of Interstate 430. At this level of traffic, turn lanes and intersection capacity
becomes a critical factor in the overall street capacity. Peak hour delays at
arterial intersections can be expected, but generally, a four (4) -lane roadway with
adequate turn lanes can handle this level of traffic.
Traffic Counts on Chenal Parkwav:
Chenal Parkway near
Rahling Road
Chenal Parkway
between Kanis Roads
(East and West)
Chenal Parkway at
Wellington Hills Road
Actual 1995
Actual 2004
2016
Counts
Counts from
Projection
Metroplan Study
Based on
Historical
20,100
Trends
38,900
6,000
11,000
11,000 I 25,800
Summary of Previous Traffic Studies:
47,000
45,500
Two other Chenal Parkway traffic studies were previously completed and the
table below summarizes both of those studies. The first study, which was
completed in 1988, served as the basis for the initial design and predicted 45,000
vpd on Chenal Parkway at the intersection with Wellington Hills Road, which is
consistent with the current traffic study.
In 1996, the City commissioned a study regarding the impact of rapidly changing
land -use in the Chenal Parkway corridor between Financial Center Parkway and
Kanis Road. That study showed that at 'full build out,' traffic would approach
78,000 vpd between the east and west legs of Kanis Road, which is far in excess
of the other studies. Full build out assumes that all land in and around the
corridor has been developed according to the desilgnated zoning and land -use
and is generating traffic consistent with those uses. That volume could not be
handled without three (3) travel lanes in each direction and is similar to current
volumes on Interstate 630.
Summary of Past and Current Traffic Studies:
Chenal Parkway
near Rahling
Road
Chenal Parkway
between Kanis
Roads (East and
CWest)
henal Parkway
at Wellington Hills
Road
1994 Board Resolution:
1988 Deltic 1996 City Study 2006 Whisenhunt
Study Full Build -Out Study — 2016
Projection — No
Land -Use changes
33,000 56,000 37,000
36,000 78,000 51,000
45,000 75,000 42,000
A 1994 Resolution was passed prior to the 1996 Traffic Study regarding Chenal
Parkway expansion. The resolution, which is attached, contains three (3) major
points:
➢ Chenal Parkway would not become a six (6) -lane road 'despite the
provisions of the Master Street Plan.'
➢ Unless approved by voters, Chenal Parkway would not be widened
unless property owners voluntarily dedicated the right-of-way and
participated equally in the cost.
➢ Any widening of Chenal Parkway by a bond issue would be voted upon
separately and not combined with any other issue.
Based on the historical trend, this level of traffic would.not occur for around 30 years.
I
Current Traffic Studv & Ana
The latest study was prepared in association with Whisenhunt's applications for
land -use plan amendments and zoning changes, and prepared by Peters and
Associates, who prepared the previous two (2) studies. The study was reviewed
by staff and has been revised a number of times based on comments by Deltic
and City Staff. An initial staff concern was that the original draft assumed future
conditions on Chenal Parkway such as three (3) lanes in both directions, and
extra turn lanes at near -by intersections that would likely not be in place in the
design year. As a result, the current traffic model presents a more conservative
outlook.
➢ The study area is bounded on the west by Wellington Hills Road, on
the east by the future Rahling Road extension to Kanis Road, on the
north by Rahling Road and on the south by Chenal Parkway including
all adjacent properties.
Impact of Various Land Use Changes:
The table below summarizes the estimated impact on average daily traffic counts
on Chenal Parkway and Rahling Road. The largest impact of the proposed
developments is in the Chenal Parkway at Kanis Road intersections.
Estimated Impact of Various Land -Use Changes
Vehicles per Day and Percent Increase over the 'No Change' Condition
At Full Build -out in the Year 2016
No Land -Use With Whisenhunt
Changes Changes (%
j increase)
Chenal Parkway
at Rahling Road
Chenal Parkway
at Kirk Road
between Kanis
Roads (East and
West)
Chenal Parkway
at Wellington Hills
Road
Rahling Road at F
Champlin
37,300 1 39,500(6%)
51,400 I 54,000(5%)
With Deltic and
Whisenhunt
Changes
42,700 (14%)
57,200 (11%)
42,000 1 44,500(6%) 46,800 (11%)
24,800 I 26,400(6%) 1 28,400 (15%)
The following table summarizes the future levels of service for various
intersections if one of both of the land -use and zoning changes are approved.
The most significant reduction in levels of service occurs at the two (2)
intersections of Chenal Parkway with Kanis Road. Levels of service at
intersections range from 'A' being the best level of service and 'F' being the worst
level of service. At level F, long delays can be expected at the intersection for
some turn movements and through vehicle movements.
Projected Level of Service at Various Intersections
At Full Build -out in the Year 2016
Chenal Parkway
at Wellington
Hills Road
Chenal Parkway
at Kanis Road
East
Chenal Parkway
at Kanis Road
Chenal Parkway
at Systems Drive
Chenal Parkway
at Rahling Road
Rahling Road at
Champlin Drive
No Land -Use With Whisenhunt With Deltic and
Changes Changes (% Whisenhunt
_ increase_) Changes
D D D
D E E
B
F
E
C
Proposed Street Improvements,
C
F
E
C
C
F
E
C
The current study also took into account the following new improvements to the
existing street network that Whisenhunt has committed to build, including:
➢ Widening of Kirk Road from Chenal Parkway north to connect with
Champlin Drive at Rahling Road to arterial standards.*
➢ Construction of a signalized intersection including dual left -turn lanes
at Chenal Parkway and Kirk Road.*
➢ Widening and extension of Wellington Hills Road to arterial standards
from the current terminus west to a new round -about intersection at
Kirk Road and Systems Drive.
➢ Extension of Wellington Village Road to collector standards from the
existing terminus west to the new Kirk Road extension.
➢ Completion of the missing portions of the third traffic lane in each
direction of Chenal Parkway between the two (2) intersections of Kanis
Road except for a small portion of the west -bound lanes near Kanis
Road.*
➢ Widening of the west leg of Kanis Road along the developer's frontage
to one half of an arterial street.
➢ Participation in the cost of a signalized intersection including dual left -
turn lanes at Chenal Parkway and the west leg Kanis Road.*
It should be noted that the Boundary Street Ordinance would have required
several of these improvement but not others. Those in excess of Boundary
Street Ordinance requirements are marked with an asterisk. A map illustrating
the changes is included with this report.
Improvements by Other Developers
The study assumes that a number of other improvements will be made by other
developers within the ten (10) -year study period including:
➢ Construction of the Rahling Road extension from Chenal Parkway west
and south to Kanis Road by Deltic. To date, plans have been
submitted for a portion to extend Rahling Road to the La Grande Drive
extension.
➢ Widening of the remainder of Rahling Road between Chenal Parkway
and Taylor Loop Road to a four (4) -lane divided arterial standard by
Deltic. This is in accordance with a much earlier agreement with Deltic
that it would construct the additional lanes when traffic counts reach
12,000 vehicles per day as it will during the ten (10) -year study period.
➢ Construction of the Wellington Hills Road extension south to Kanis
Road. Currently, the adjacent property owners have five (5) -year
deferrals on boundary street obligations for this work.
➢ Widening of the northern portion of the west leg of Kanis Road when
that property develops.
➢ Widening at the recently improved Cauley Development on Chenal
Parkway near Kanis Road west.
➢ Construction of a signalized intersection at the Chenal Parkway and
Wellington Hills Road intersection project that is currently under
contract and is being funded by a combination of public dollars from
the 2004 Bond Program and private dollars.
• Z Pulaski County had previously agreed to signalize this intersection and
Whisenhunt will pay for the incremental cost to upgrade and provide
additional right-of-way necessary to incorporate the additional lanes.
A
Staff Recommendation:
The current study by Whisenhunt predicts traffic volumes that are consistent with,
or somewhat higher, than historical trends and the 1988 Deltic Study. The
current study also projects that 2016 traffic volumes will be far less than
predicted by the full build -out study commissioned by the City.
Overall, staff recommends that the study presented by the applicant is a fair
representation of projected traffic growth in the corridor. The volumes predicted
are consistent with historical trends and are volumes that can be handled with
four (4) travel lanes in each direction and full development of turn lanes at
intersections and major driveways with six (6) lanes between Kanis Road (east)
and Kanis Road (west). A large traffic volume was predicted for the corridor in
the past, and that trend continues.
In addition, staff is of the opinion that the improvements proposed by Whisenhunt
are reasonable and mitigate the effect of the increased traffic resulting from their
proposed development. The proposed improvements exceed Boundary Street
Ordinance obligations and serve to lessen delays resulting from increased traffic.
It should be apparent; however, that additional improvements will be necessary
in the future. Projections of ultimate traffic volumes from this and previous traffic
studies show that the current four (4) -lane roadway and intersection
configurations will eventually become overloaded whether or not all proposed
land -use plan changes are approved.
If additional information is needed, please advise.
Attachments
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING
DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED
OFFICE DISTRICT TITLED SHACKLEFORD FARMS
LONG -FORM POD (Z -4807-F), LOCATED NORTH OF
WELLINGTON HILLS ROAD, WEST OF THE VILLAGES
OF WELLINGTON SUBDIVISION, LITTLE ROCK,
ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property
be changed from R-2, MF -6, 0-2 and C-1 to POD:
Part of the NEIA SE1/4 and part of the SETA SEI/4 of Section 36, T -2-N,
R -14-W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the SE corner of the SETA SETA of said Section 36; thence
N 87°24'26" W along the east line of said SEI/4 SEI/4, a distance of 752.81
feet to the north right-of-way line of Wellington Hills Road; thence along
said north right-of-way line on a curve to the right having a Radius of
555.00 feet, an Arc Length of 499.73 feet and a Chord that bears N
56°04'38" W, a distance of 483.02 feet; thence N 30°16'57" W along said
north right-of-way line, a distance of 422.35 feet; thence continue along said
north right-of-way line on a curve to the left having a Radius of 645.00 feet,
an Are Length of 213.39 feet and a Chord that bears N 39°45'36" W, a
distance of 212.42 feet; thence N 40°45'44" E, a distance of 68.41 feet;
thence N 29°59'45" E, a distance of 193.50 feet; thence S 60°00'15" E, a
distance 381.46 feet; thence S 88°07'33" E, a distance of 302.56 feet to the
east line of said Section 36; thence S 01°39'39" W along said east line, a
distance of 816.73 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 10.08
Acres (439,055 sq. ft.) more or less.
SECTION 2. That the approval of the Shackleford Farms Long -form POD (Z-
4807 -F), located North of Wellington Hills Road, West of the Villages of Wellington
Subdivision is subject to compliance with the following additional conditions:
Subsection (a): Basic Development Composition -
I . The 10.08 acre site shall be developed with office and commercial uses with an
approximate balance of 70% office and 30% commercial measured on a
proportional basis of building area for the entire property. There shall be a
maximum density of 20,000 square feet per acre of office uses and a maximum
density of 10,000 square feet per acre of commercial uses. The maximum
commercial area is 30,000 square feet based on the proposed usage mix. The
maximum area of restaurant use (as part of the maximum commercial area) shall
be 16,000 square feet. The maximum area for office uses shall be based on
previously stated densities which would allow 200,000 square feet if the site was
developed entirely with office uses or 140,000 square feet based on the proposed
use mix.
2. Allowed uses for the commercial shall be those uses identified under the C-2
classification, including the conditional and accessory uses. The uses allowed for
the office shall be those uses identified under the 0-2 classifications, including
the conditional and accessory uses.
3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings, or
multiple building on a single site.
4. Buildings may be for single or mixed use.
Subsection (b) Basic Development Guidelines -
1. The layout of proposed building site improvements shall be approved by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Directors as an amendment to this POD
application.
2. The maximum building height allowed shall conform to 0-2 height regulations.
3. All site lighting shall be low-level, directed away from adjacent property, and
shielded downward and onto the site.
4. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets, screened with
masonry enclosures, and gated with screened gate panels.
5. Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on the
property except for one-half hour before and after the users hours of being open to
the general public. The operation of any such speaker and system is limited to
those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible from adjoining properties or
boundary streets.
6. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements and provide a minimum street buffer of twenty-five
feet along boundary streets.
7. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of Little
Rock ordinance requirements.
Subsection (c): Public Infrastructure Improvements -
1. A traffic study shall be provided by the developer to identify street
improvements that will be recommended to service the proposed uses and to
evaluate proposed alignments.
2. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public
Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street
improvements that will be required.
3. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various
utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific
utility improvements that will be required.
4. Rights-of-way and easements for required street, drainage, and utility
improvements will be provided by the developer.
Subsection (d): Signage Guidelines -
1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet in
height or 100 square feet in area (as measured on one side).
2. Monument Signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among buildings
and tenants.
3. Final signage locations shall be approved by the Planning Commission and the
Board of Directors as an amendment to this POD application.
4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance
requirements based on the associated building use.
Subsection (e): Grading and Excavation Guidelines -
1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall
grading plan and project for surrounding properties and roadways. This work will
be done in advance of actual property development.
2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and
surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work and related hauling
operations that will occur at the actual time of development.
SECTION 3. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as
recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission.
SECTION 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for
Shackleford Farms Long -form POD (Z -4807-F), located North of Wellington Hills Road,
West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan
approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the
Code of Ordinances.
SECTION 5. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby
amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change
provided for in Section 1 hereof.
SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until
the final approval of the plan.
SECTION 7. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item,
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining
portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so
declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the
ordinance.
SECTION 8. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same
that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of such inconsistency.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
Shackleford Farms Long -form PCD (Z -4807-G) — located South of
Wellington Hills Road, East of Kirk Road
Total Site Area 30.28 acres
Current Zoning C-1 (?? couple/three acres??) and 0-2 — (Polygon 32.09 acres —
including right-of-way)
Development Proposal —
Minimum of 30% Office
9.084 acres
Maximum Development Density
20,000 Sq. Ft.
Maximum 70% Commercial
21.196 acres
10,000 Sq. Ft.
Maximum Restaurant Space 42,000 Sq. Ft.
Total Sq. Ft. Commercial allowed 212,000 Sq. Ft. (211,960 Sq. Ft.)
Total Sq. Ft. 100% Office — 606,000 Sq. Ft. (605,600 Sq. Ft.)
Total Sq. Ft. Office Mixed Use Development 182,000 Sq. Ft. (181,600 Sq. Ft.)
Total Mixed Use Development 394,000 Sq. Ft. (393,560 Sq. Ft.)
Allowable Uses 0-2 and C-2 including Conditional and Accessory Uses with no
limitation on the Accessory and Conditional uses (potentially more than the 10%
allowed)
Maximum of three (3) to four (4) Out Parcels identified (located along Wellington
and Kirk)
PC and BOD approval of the final development plan including signage,
landscaping and required infrastructure improvements. Final Building design will
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and BOD as a revision to
the POD.
Maximum Building Height as in 0-2 and C-2 Zoning District Office 80 -feet
(potentially 120 -feet depending on setbacks) — Commercial 45 -feet (as allowed)
Signage 10 —feet tall — 100 — Sq. Ft. in area (Office 6 -feet and 64 sq. ft. —
Commercial 36 -feet and 160 sq. ft.)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING
DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED SHACKLEFORD
FARMS LONG -FORM PCD (Z -4807-G), LOCATED
SOUTH OF WELLINGTON HILLS ROAD, EAST OF KIRK
ROAD, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE
ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property
be changed from C-1 and 0-2 to PCD:
Part of the NE1/4 SE1/4 and part of the SEI/4 SE1/4 of Section 36, T -2-N,
R -14-W, City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas being more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the SE corner of the SE1/4 SE1/4 of said Section 36; thence
N 01°39'39" E along the east line of said SEI/4 SETA, a distance of 50.00
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence N 87°24'26" w, a distance of
329.75 feet to the east line Lot 1, Riverside Properties Subdivision as filed
for record in plat book F, page 749; thence N 02°09'25" E along the east line
of said Lot 1, a distance of 85.62 feet to the NE corner of said Lot 1; thence
N 87°55'40" W, a distance of 939.49 feet to the east right-of-way line of
Kirk Road; thence N 01°38'06" E along said east right-of-way line, a
distance of 1369.61 feet; thence along said east right-of-way line on a curve
to the left having a Radius 120.00 feet, an Arc Length of 95.49 feet and a
Chord that bears N 46°48'53" E, a distance of 92.99 feet to the south right-
of-way line of Wellington Hills Road; thence S 88°00'20" E along said
south right-of-way line, a distance of 27.21 feet; thence continue along said
south right-of-way line on a curve to the right having a Radius 555.00 feet,
an Arc Length of 559.14 feet and a Chord that bears S 59°08'39" E, a
distance of 535.79 feet; thence S 30°16'57" E along said south right-of-way
line, a distance of 422.35 feet; thence continue along said south right-of-way
line on a curve to the left having a Radius of 645.00 feet, an Arc Length of
590.94 feet and a Chord that bears S 56°31'46" E, a distance of 570.49 feet
to the east line of said SE1/4 SEI/4; thence S 01°39'39" W along the east
line of said SE1/4 SE1/4, a distance of 612.31 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING, containing 30.28 Acres (1,319,035 sq. ft.) more or less.
SECTION 2. That the approval of the Shackleford Farms Long -form PCD (Z-
4807 -G), located on the South of Wellington Hills Road, East of Kirk Road is subject to
compliance with the following additional conditions:
Subsection (a): Basic Development Composition -
1. The 30.28 acre site shall be developed with commercial and office uses with
an approximate balance of 70% commercial and 30% office measured on a
proportional basis of building area for the entire property. There shall be a
maximum density of 20,000 square feet per acre of office uses and a
maximum density of 10,000 square feet per acre of commercial uses. The
maximum commercial area is 212,000 square feet based on the proposed
usage mix. The maximum area of restaurant use (as part of the maximum
commercial area) shall be 42,000 square feet. The maximum area for office
uses shall be based on previously stated densities which would allow 606,000
square feet if the site was developed entirely with office uses or 182,000
square feet based on the proposed use mix.
2. Allowed uses for the commercial shall be those uses identified under the C-2
classification, including the conditional and accessory uses. The uses allowed
for the office shall be those uses identified under the 0-2 classifications,
including the conditional and accessory uses.
3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings, or
multiple building on a single site.
4. Buildings may be for single or mixed use.
Subsection (b) Basic Development Guidelines -
1. The layout of proposed building site improvements shall be approved by the
Planning Commission and the Little Rock Board of Directors as an
amendment to this PCD application.
2. The maximum building height allowed shall conform to 0-2 height
regulations.
3. All site lighting shall be low-level, directed away from adjacent property, and
shielded downward and onto the site.
4. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets, screened
with masonry enclosures, and gated with screened gate panels.
5. Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on
the property except for one-half hour before and after the users hours of being
open to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and system is
limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible from adjoining
properties or boundary streets.
6. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of
Little Rock ordinance requirements and provide a minimum street buffer of
twenty-five feet along boundary streets.
7. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of
Little Rock ordinance requirements.
Subsection (c): Public Infrastructure Improvements -
1. A traffic study shall be provided by the developer to identify street
improvements that will be recommended to service the proposed uses and to
evaluate proposed alignments.
2. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public
Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street
improvements that will be required.
3. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various
utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific
utility improvements that will be required.
4. Rights-of-way and easements for required street, drainage, and utility
improvements will be provided by the developer.
Subsection (d): Signage Guidelines -
1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet
in height or 100 square feet in area (as measured on one side).
2. Monument Signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among
buildings and tenants.
3. Final signage locations shall be approved by the Planning Commission and
the City of Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD
application.
4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance
requirements based on the associated building use.
Subsection (e): Grading and Excavation Guidelines -
1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall
grading plan and project for surrounding properties and roadways. This work
will be done in advance of actual property development.
2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and
surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work and related
hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of development.
SECTION 3. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as
recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission.
SECTION 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for
Shackleford Farms Long -form PCD (Z -4807-G), located on the South of Wellington
Hills Road, East of Kirk Road is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within
the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of
Ordinances.
SECTION 5. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby
amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change
provided for in Section 1 hereof.
SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until
the final approval of the plan.
SECTION 7. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item,
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining
portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so
declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the
ordinance.
SECTION 8. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same
that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of such inconsistency.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
Shackleford Farms Long -form PCD (Z -5617-A) — located South of Chenal
Parkway, West of Kirk Road
Total Site Area 30.8 acres
Current Zoning C-3 (less than 1 acre), PCD (19.71 acres) and R-2 — 2.6 acres
located in the floodway dedicated to the City or Zoned to Open Space at the time
the final development plan is submitted.
Development Proposal —
Minimum of 15% Office Maximum 85% Commercial
4.62 acres 26.18 acres -- ktrr"11_1
Maximum Development Density Commercial 12,000 Sq. Ft. -� ta- hu'
Maximum Restaurant Space 65,000 Sq. Ft.
Total Sq. Ft. Commercial allowed 314,500 Sq. Ft. (314,160 Sq. Ft.)
A Minimum of 55,000 Sq. Ft. Office
Allowable Uses (15%) 0-2 and (85%) C-2 including Conditional and Accessory
Uses with no limitation on the Accessory and Conditional uses (potentially more
than the 10% allowed)
PC and BOD approval of the final development plan including signage,
landscaping and required infrastructure improvements. Final Building design will
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and BOD as a revision to
the POD.
zw
Maximum Building Height as in 0-2 and C-2 Zoning Distrilict Officefeet
(potentially 120 -feet depending on setbacks) — Commercial 45 -feet (as allowed)
Signage 10 —feet tall — 100 — Sq. Ft. in area (Chenal DOD 8 — feet tall — 100 Sq.
Ft. area)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING
DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT TITLED SHACKLEFORD
FARMS 30.8 ACRES LONG -FORM PCD (Z -5617-A),
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE
ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS.
SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property
be changed from C-3, PCD and R-2 to PCD:
THE E1/2 OF TRACT 40, THE SOUTH 300 FT. OF THE W1/2 OF
TRACT 40, ALL IN UNIT #1 OF INDEPENDENCE FARMS, A
SUBDIVISION IN PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS AND PART OF
THE NWIA NE1/4, ALL IN SECTION 1, T -1-N, R -14-W, LITTLE
ROCK, PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NWl/4 NE1/4 SAID SECTION 1;
THENCE NO3028'19"E ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF, 400.90 FT.
TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 40, UNIT #1,
INDEPENDENCE FARMS; THENCE N77°51'38"W ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 40, 209.69 FT. TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER THEREOF; THENCE NO2'1 1'59"E ALONG THE WEST LINE
OF SAID TRACT 40, 300.35 FT.; THENCE S77°51'38"E, 105.00 FT.;
THENCE NO2023'58"E, 300.00 FT. TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID TRACT 40; THENCE S770271 1 "E ALONG SAID NORTH
LINE, 104.44 FT. TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 40;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF KANIS ROAD, BEING THE ARC OF A 612.95 FT. RADIUS
CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF
N86030'37"E, 94.67 FT. TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF OLD
KANIS ROAD (NOW CLOSED); THENCE S79000'54"E ALONG SAID
CENTERLINE 207.94 FT.; THENCE EASTERLY AND CONTINUING
ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, BEING THE ARC OF A 675.00 FT.
RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF S88°45'51 "E, 190.65 FT.; THENCE N84°50'34"E AND
CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 138.15 FT.; THENCE
S89046'18"E AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, 216.95
FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CHENAL
PARKWAY; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, BEING THE ARC OF A 1014.93 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO
THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S79°18'54"E,
347.37 FT.; THENCE S89°10'07"E AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID
SOUTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 28.16 FT. TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATED FOR THE FUTURE
EXTENSION SOUTHERLY OF KIRK ROAD RECORDED AT DEED
98-046678 OF THE RECORDS OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE,
BEING THE ARC OF A 50.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, A
CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S48°21'24"E, 65.40 FT.;
THENCE S07025'52"E AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, 108.23 FT.; THENCE SO1°38'10"W AND CONTINUING
ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 440.54 FT.; THENCE
SOUTHWESTERLY AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE, BEING THE ARC OF A 686.20 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO
THE RIGHT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S 12°01'54"W,
247.66 FT.; THENCE S22°28'59"W AND CONTINUING ALONG SAID
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, 120.42 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE
OF SAID NW1/4 NE1/4; THENCE N88°16'41"W ALONG SAID SOUTH
LINE, 1214.39 FT. TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING
30.8065 ACRES MORE OR LESS.
SECTION 2. That the approval of the Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long -form
PCD (Z -5617-A), located on the Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road is
subject to compliance with the following additional conditions:
Subsection (a): Basic Development Composition -
1. The 30.8 acre site shall be developed with commercial and office uses with an
approximate balance of 85% commercial and 15% office measured on a
proportional basis of building area for the entire property. The maximum
building square footage of the development shall be tied to the proposed usage
mix of the final development plan. There shall be a maximum density of
12,000 square feet per acre of commercial uses. The maximum commercial
area is 314,500 square feet based on the proposed density. A minimum of
55,500 square feet of office space is proposed. The maximum area of
restaurant use (as part of the maximum commercial area) shall be 65,000
square feet.
2. Allowed uses for the 85 percent commercial shall be those uses identified
under the C-2 classification, including the conditional and accessory uses.
The uses allowed for the 15 percent office shall be those uses identified under
the 0-2 classifications, including the conditional and accessory uses.
3. The property may be developed as a mix of individual lots and buildings, or
multiple building on a single site.
4. Buildings may be for single or mixed use.
Subsection (b) Basic Development Guidelines -
1. The layout of proposed building site improvements shall be approved by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Directors as an amendment to this
PCD application.
2. The maximum building height allowed shall conform to C-2 height
regulations.
3. All site lighting shall be low-level, directed away from adjacent property, and
shielded downward and onto the site.
4. All trash enclosures shall be oriented away from boundary streets, screened
with masonry enclosures, and gated with screened gate panels.
5. Use of outdoor speaker or sound amplification system shall be prohibited on
the property except for one-half hour before and after the users hours of being
open to the general public. The operation of any such speaker and system is
limited to those that do not emit sound that is plainly audible from adjoining
properties or boundary streets.
6. All landscape and buffer areas shall be provided to meet or exceed City of
Little Rock ordinance requirements.
7. All portions of the property shall be landscaped to meet or exceed City of
Little Rock ordinance requirements.
Subsection (c): Public Infrastructure Improvements -
1. A traffic study shall be provided by the developer to identify street
improvements that will be recommended to service the proposed uses and to
evaluate proposed alignments.
2. The developer shall negotiate an agreement with City of Little Rock Public
Works and Traffic Engineering for the installation of specific street
improvements that will be required.
3. The developer shall review related utility infrastructure needs with the various
utility companies and negotiate agreements for the installation of specific
utility improvements that will be required.
4. Rights-of-way and easements for required street, drainage, and utility
improvements will be provided by the developer.
Subsection (d): Signage Guidelines -
1. Monument style signage shall be used and each sign shall not exceed 10 feet
in height or 100 square feet in area (as measured on one side).
2. Monument Signage may be used on a shared or individual basis among
buildings and tenants.
3. Final signage locations shall be approved by the Planning Commission and
the Little Rock Board of Directors as an amendment to this PCD application.
4. All building wall signage shall comply with City of Little Rock ordinance
requirements based on the associated building use.
Subsection (e): Grading and Excavation Guidelines -
1. Preliminary grading shall be done on this property as part of a larger overall
grading plan and project for nearby properties and roadways. This work will
be done in advance of actual property development.
2. The developer shall provide an overall master grading plan covering this and
surrounding properties to minimize future excavation work and related
hauling operations that will occur at the actual time of development.
SECTION 3. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as
recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission.
SECTION 4. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for
Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long -form PCD (Z -5617-A), located on the Southeast
corner of Chenal Parkway and Kanis Road is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan
approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the
Code of Ordinances.
SECTION 5. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances
of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby
amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change
provided for in Section 1 hereof.
SECTION 6. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until
the final approval of the plan.
SECTION 7. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item,
sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining
portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so
declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the
ordinance.
SECTION 8. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same
that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the
extent of such inconsistency.
PASSED:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
Mayor
F__ - — Board of Directors Communication
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS
FROM: BRUCE T. MOORE, CITY MANAGM—
SUBJECT: FELLOWSHIP BIBLE CHURCH
DATE: JUNE 12, 2006
The request was made at the May 30, 2006, Board of Directors Meeting for staff
to provide clarification regarding whether the Fellowship Bible Church
development is contingent upon the Board of Directors approval of the various
land -use and proposed zoning changes as presented to the Planning
Commission. In addition, staff was to prepare a report on the existing traffic
patterns in the area, supply drawings of the proposed street improvements,
analyze the anticipated traffic patterns if developments occur and address how
any issues will be handled.
The Fellowship Bible Church Conditional Use Permit (CUP) that allowed
construction of the church is a separate administrative item from the land -use
and zoning items before the Board of Directors. However, statements made by
representatives of Whisenhunt Developers (Whisenhunt) and a letter from
Fellowship Bible Church indicate that the real estate sale is contingent in some
contractual way on all of the Shackleford Road property being developed at one
time. According to the developer and Church Officials, this is to facilitate grading
of the sites and road construction.
Fellowship Bible Church has contracted with Whisenhunt, the applicant for the
proposed Land -Use Plan amendments and re -zonings, to purchase a tract of
land at the center of the old Shackleford Road dairy farm for the Church's new
campus. The site is fifty (50) acres and is part of the farm's acreage, for a total of
one hundred ten (110) acres, located north of Chenal Parkway.
The development plans for the entire site are complex, requiring the construction
of multiple streets, improving the intersections and making other infrastructure
improvements. In addition, considerable earthwork must be completed to make
the site usable, which requires the ability to distribute fill material over the entire
property. All street work is to be completed at one time and will commence after
the earthwork is completed to insure high quality roads and intersections. The
City of Little Rock, Arkansas —
Page 1 of 1
Bozynski, Tony
From: Moore, Bruce
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 10:48 AM
To: Haralson, Steve; Langley, Susan
Cc: Bozynski, Tony; Carney, Dana; Malone, Walter; Hall, Russell; Hatley, Ramona; Butler, Tresa
Subject: RE: Board Request for Tonight's meeting
Okay to present at tonight's meeting. Susan, please put in format and fax or email to BOD today.
From: Haralson, Steve
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 9:50 AM
To: Moore, Bruce; Langley, Susan
Cc: Bozynski, Tony; Carney, Dana; Malone, Walter; Hall, Russell; Hatley, Ramona; Butler, Tresa
Subject: Board Request for Tonight's meeting
Below is the draft joint response from Planning & Development and Public Works for your comments and/or use.
Please let us know if you would like this to be presented at tonight's meeting in some way other than memo form.
Please let me know if you need other information. Thanks.
Items of interest at last week's agenda meeting are whether the City can limit the number of trips to a site through
zoning and land use and the pt n for moving dirt across Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway. I have asked staff to
investigate and they report tha the number of trips to a site is in a sense limited based on the approved use
established by PZD or CUP. E approved use is presumed to generatearticular number of trips per day
based on a variety of factors including square footage and seaffng capacity
In this regard, the number of trips is "limited"' as long as the approved use is specifically defined for a site - the
traffic manual has estimated numbers of estimated trips for each use. Staff does not believe, however, it is
realistic to limit a site to a specific number of trips primarily because it is not feasible to enforce such a limitation.
In a broader sense, land use and zoning of property must also be evaluated in conjunction with the Master Street
Plan so that the anticipated traffic generated by the properties "fit" the capacity of the street network. Under this
analysis, trips per day have to be taken into consideration whenever any changes are made to zoning or land use.
To move dirt across Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway the contractor will be required to develop and have approved
a plan for handling the construction traffic and it will likely include provisions for a temporary signal at the
intersection of Kirk Road and Chenal Parkway. The signal timing would be coordinated with other signals in the
area so it will have minimal impact on the road network and provide safe crossing for the trucks. This is similar to
the approach recently taken for the large truck volume on the Pleasant Ridge site and it worked very well.
6/20/2006
Page 1 of 2
Bozynski, Tony
From: Haralson, Steve
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 4:49 PM
To: Bozynski, Tony
Subject: FW: Board Request Summary
Tony — bet this is going off in the wrong direction. Let's discuss.
Can the City limit the number of trips to a site through zoning and land use?
Staff believes the answer to this is generally `yes" but some background information may be useful
It is generally well accepted that sites with different zoning and land uses will usually have different traffic
generation patterns. For example, a parcel used as multi -family property will have different traffic volumes and
patterns than a similarly sized parcel with a commercial use.
These differences in traffic generation patterns and volumes mean that their effect on the area road network will
be different as well. From the previous example, it should be expected that the multi family parcel will have a
different impact on the road network than the commercial property — the commercial property should be expected
to generate more traffic than the multi family property.
As a result, the zoning and land use of a property can be used to limit the traffic.
Another factor that should always be considered is the capacity of the road network and the impact of any
development on that network. As a general rule, the measuring stick for when the road system is adequate is
when it meets Master Street Plan (`MSP') standards — i.e., if a road is developed to MSP standards it is generally
considered adequate for the accompanying land uses and zoning. If the MSP standards are inadequate to carry
the traffic volume based on current land use and zoning then past practice has been to review and update the
MSP.
As the above applies to the Whisenhunt applications, it is apparent that the proposed land use and zoning
applications will likely cause an incremental increase in traffic on Chenal Parkway, but that it will still be well within
its capacity when developed to MSP standards.
From: Langley, Susan
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 4:52 PM
To: Carpenter, Tom; Biles, Bob; Haralson, Steve; Bozynski, Tony; Day, Bryan; Hollingsworth, Terri; Bernard,
Andre; Carter, Scott; Hall, Russell; Thomas, Stuart; Wilson, Odies; Nayles, Dorothy
Cc: Engster, Bonnie; Phillips, Sharon; Hulsey, Sue; Young, Venita; Wade, Edna; Monagle, W. J.
Subject: Board Request Summary
Susan K. Langley
Administrative Services Manager
City Manager's Office
City of Little Rock
500 West Markham, Room 203
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-244-5468
501-371-4498 (fax)
www,.I.ittle..ro.ck.org
"Your Very Own Key to the City of Little Rock"
6/19/2006
Bozynski, Tony
From: Carney, Dana
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 9:47 AM
To: Bozynski, Tony
Subject: Board request
Tony:
In a sense, we do limit the number of trips to a site based on the approved use established by
PZD or CUP. Each approved use is presumed to generate a particular number of trips per day
based on a variety of factors including square footage and seating capacity. The number of trips
is "limited"' as long as the approved use is specifically defined for a site. the traffic manual should
have numbers for each use. I don't believe it is realistic to put a specific number of trips on a site.
It is not feasible to enforce .In a broader sense, land use and zoning of property is to be done in
conjunction with the Master Street Plan so that the anticipated traffic generated by the properties
"fits" the capacity of the street. So, trips per day have to be taken into consideration whenever
any changes are made to zoning or land use.
Dana
Bozynski, Tony
From: James, Donna
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 3:48 PM
To: Bozynski, Tony
Subject: Conceptual PUD's reviewed and approved
Talked with Dana and here are a few we could think of -
Accord PCD (Jerry Meyer) located on the Southwest corner of Baseline Road and Sibley Hole
Road - 86 acres create 26 lots, establish uses.
Shackleford Crossing PCD - 94.87 acres establish uses
Village at Chenal - Nontraditional development establish use areas preliminary design review
(located on the northwest corner of Rahling Road and Chenal Parkway - the Planned
Development revoked a few months ago)
Village at Rahling Road - - create lots'establish uses, site review of the main retail center (The
Village at Rahling Road Towne Center)
Brodie Creek - Nontraditional development establish use areas preliminary design review (later
revoked and developed as Woodlands Edge)
Miracle Development POD - Create a maximum build able area and establishes uses (South side
of Cantrell at Westchester Subdivision - the carwash site)
River Harbor - Establish uses and identify build able areas - Project located in the floodway
requires additional review once approvals from Federal Agencies is received.
Ellis Mountain
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
Chenal
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
Pinnacle
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1
0
1
1
1
2
1
2
9
0
1
2
1
2
3
1
1
11
0
1
3
0
0
0
1
2
7
WYRICK
1. Have you worked with the planning staff and looked at the zoning past this area.
Do you ever coordinate with the planning staff? We do coordinate with planning
staff and take into consideration the surrounding this area.
When is the last time we did an update to the land -use map and zoning map in this
area? Planning Ans,\ver
3. Did the consultant look at the current land -use map to see what we predict is
going to happen in the area surrounding, or is it a mathematical engineering thing
you do? The consultant looks at the current land -use map and zoning in the area.
4. How do you predict Karns from Chenal to Denny will grow land -use wise?
Nanniiiv�•Aiiswer
e5'�
('6_Aj 1_11�
6
• k'
0
44'_� 2ovl
�`--
Acres
Office
Commercial
Total
10.08
Applicant
140,000
30,000
30,810
^ 170,000
174,590
Actual
143,780
30.28
Applicant
182,000
212,000
211,960
314,500
314,160
394,000
V 393,560
369,500
369,160
Actual
181,600
30.8
Applicant
55,000
_
Actual
55,000
Total Office
Applicant
37700
Total Office
Actual
380,380
Total Commercial
Applicant
556,500
Total Commercial
Actual
556,930
Total Combined
Applicant
9333500
Total Combined
Actual
937,310
Shackleford Farms Long -form POD (Z -4807-F) — located North of
Wellington Hills Road, West of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision
Total Site Area 10.08 acres
The site is zoned MF -6 (polygon 10.27 acres including right-of-way), R-2 (maybe
an acre), 0-2 (not much — depends on the location of the road) and C-1 (not much
— depends on the location of the road)
Development Proposal —
Minimum of 70% Office Maximum 30% Commercial
7 acres (7.189 acres) 3 acres (3.081 acres)
Maximum Development Density
20,000 Sq. Ft. 10,000 Sq. Ft.
Maximum Restaurant Space 16,000 Sq. Ft.
Total Sq. Ft. 100% Office — 200,000 Sq. Ft. (205,400 Sq. Ft.)
Total Sq. Ft. Office Mixed Use Development 140,000 Sq. Ft. (143,780 Sq. Ft.)
Total Sq. Ft. Commercial 30,000 Sq. Ft. (30,810 Sq. Ft.)
Total Sq. Ft. Mixed Use Development 170,000 Sq. Ft. (174,590 Sq. Ft.)
Allowable Uses 0-2 and C-2 including Conditional and Accessory Uses with no
limitation on the Accessory and Conditional uses (potentially more than the 10%
allowed)
One area identified as an Out Parcel (2 acres)
PC and BOD approval of the final development plan including signage,
landscaping and required infrastructure improvements. Final Building design will
be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and BOD as a revision to
the POD.
Maximum Building Height as in 0-2 and C-2 Zoning District Office 80 -feet
(potentially 120 -feet depending on setbacks) — Commercial 45 -feet (as allowed)
Signage 10 —feet tall — 100 — Sq. Ft. in area (Office 6 -feet and 64 sq. ft. —
Commercial 36 -feet and 160 sq. ft.)
Doc# 99067159
DELTIC TIMBER PURCHASERS, rNC. 255
By 1 .,
Ron L. Pearce, President
fart: st
W Bayless Rob, Secretary
ACKNO'vV2EDG�>ENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS
COUNTY OF 1;1 --
Or. this day before me, a Notary Public, duly commissioned, qualified and acting within and
for said county and state, appeared the within named Ron L. Pearce and W. Bayless Rowe, to me
well known, who stated that they were the President and Secretary, respectively, of DELTIC
TIMBER PURCHASERS. INC. and were designated and drily authorized in their respective
capacities by said DELTIC TLIIBER PURCHASERS, INC. to execute the above instrument for and
in the name and behalf of said DELTIC TIMBER PURCHASERS, INC., and further acknowledged
that they had so signed, executed, and delivered said foregoing instrument for the consideration, uses
and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this /,"'day of
r" 4.41 1999.
NOTARY PUBLIC
My commission expires;
My COMTission Expires March 1, 2CO2
F HDNE_FATPDELTIGI[. ,&1.Q tr4 6
THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY:
Richard C. Downing
Attorney at Law
425 W. Capitol, Suite 3310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO:
Engineering
Department of Public Works
City of Little Rock, Arkansas
701 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
DEDICATION DEED
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That DELTIC TIMBER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter
"Grantor"), formerly known as Deltic Farm & Timber Co., Inc., whose mailing address is
210 East Elm Street, El Dorado, Arkansas 71730, for and in consideration of the benefits to
accrue to it, which benefits it acknowledges to be of value, subject to the reservations hereinafter
made, without any warranty whatsoever, does hereby dedicate unto the CITY OF LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS, an Arkansas municipal corporation (hereinafter "Grantee"), and unto its
successors and assigns, an easement or right of way in, on, under, over and across those certain
lands (the "Dedicated Property") shown and described on EXHIBIT "A," attached hereto and
hereby made a part hereof, for the purposes of constructing, installing, operating, maintaining
and repairing a public street, sidewalks, traffic control devices, streetlights, utilities, stormwater
drainage, landscaped areas and for other purposes consistent with those specifically set forth
herein.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Dedicated Property unto the said Grantee, and unto its
successors and assigns, so long as a public street is constructed thereon no later than June 1,
2008, and said public street is maintained and utilized by said Grantee, its successors and
assigns, for the use and benefit of the public.
The said Grantor does hereby reserve and retain unto itself, and unto its successors and
assigns, forever, all the right and privilege to construct, install or place aboveground or overhead
utilities or utility lines in, on, over or across the Dedicated Property; any use of the Dedicated
Property by the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, for the purpose of constructing,
installing or placing utilities or utility lines, shall be limited to underground or subsurface uses
only. Further, the said Grantor does hereby reserve and retain unto itself, and unto its successors
and assigns, forever, the right and privilege of determining the location (horizontally and
vertically) of underground utilities or utility lines that are to be constructed, installed or placed
in, on, under or across the Dedicated Property; the construction, installation or placement of
underground utilities or utility lines in, on, under or across the Dedicated Property by the said
Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall be limited to locations (horizontally and vertically)
approved by said the Grantor, its successors and assigns, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld, denied or delayed. Further yet, the said Grantor does hereby reserve and
retain unto itself, and unto its successors and assigns, forever, the right and privilege of
demolishing and/or removing any utility or utility line or portion thereof in, on, under, over or
across the Dedicated Property without any charge, cost, consequence or obligation for replacing
or repairing the same, regardless of whether such utility or utility line was constructed within an
"approved" location, if and when demolition and/or removal of any such utility or utility line or
portion thereof is reasonably necessary for the construction, intallation, operation, maintenance
and/or repair of any public street improvement or any public or private drainage improvement
regardless of who makes any such improvement or the source of funding therefor.
EXECUTED on this day of 112007.
ATTEST:
W. Bayless Rowe, Secretary
DELTIC TIMBER CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation
LN
-2-
Ray C. Dillon, President
EXHIBIT "A"
-3-
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS )
)ss.
COUNTY OF UNION)
On this day of , 2007, before me, the undersigned Notary
Public, personally appeared RAY C. DILLON and W. BAYLESS ROWE, to me well known,
who stated that they were, respectively, the President and Secretary of DELTIC TIMBER
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, whose mailing address is 210 East Elm Street, El
Dorado, Arkansas 71730, and that they were duly authorized in their respective capacities to
execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of said corporation, and further
stated and acknowledged to me that they had so executed the same for the consideration, uses
and purposes set forth therein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires:
[SEAL]
Notary Public
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
I certify under penalty of false swearing that the legally correct amount of documentary
stamps have been placed on this instrument.
Agent for Grantee
THIS INSTRUMENT PREPARED BY:
Richard C. Downing
Attorney at Law
425 W. Capitol, Suite 3310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
AFTER RECORDING, RETURN TO:
Engineering
Department of Public Works
City of Little Rock, Arkansas
701 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
DEDICATION DEED
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That DELTIC TIMBER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation (hereinafter
"Grantor"), formerly known as Deltic Farm & Timber Co., Inc., whose mailing address is
210 East Elm Street, El Dorado, Arkansas 71730, for and in consideration of the benefits to
accrue to it, which benefits it acknowledges to be of value, subject to the reservations hereinafter
made, without any warranty whatsoever, does hereby dedicate unto the CITY OF LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS, an Arkansas municipal corporation (hereinafter "Grantee"), and unto its
successors and assigns, an easement or right of way in, on, under, over and across those certain
lands (the "Dedicated Property") shown and described on EXHIBIT "A," attached hereto and
hereby made a part hereof, for the purposes of constructing, installing, operating, maintaining
and repairing a public street, sidewalks, traffic control devices, streetlights, utilities, stormwater
drainage, landscaped areas and for other purposes consistent with those specifically set forth
herein.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Dedicated Property unto the said Grantee, and unto its
successors and assigns, so long as a public street is constructed thereon no later than June 1,
2008, and said public street is maintained and utilized by said Grantee, its successors and
assigns, for the use and benefit of the public.
The said Grantor does hereby reserve and retain unto itself, and unto its successors and
assigns, forever, all the right and privilege to construct, install or place aboveground or overhead
utilities or utility lines in, on, over or across the Dedicated Property; any use of the Dedicated
Property by the said Grantee, its successors and assigns, for the purpose of constructing,
installing or placing utilities or utility lines, shall be limited to underground or subsurface uses
only. Further, the said Grantor does hereby reserve and retain unto itself, and unto its successors
and assigns, forever, the right and privilege of determining the location (horizontally and
vertically) of underground utilities or utility lines that are to be constructed, installed or placed
in, on, under or across the Dedicated Property; the construction, installation or placement of
underground utilities or utility lines in, on, under or across the Dedicated Property by the said
Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall be limited to locations (horizontally and vertically)
approved by said the Grantor, its successors and assigns, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld, denied or delayed. Further yet, the said Grantor does hereby reserve and
retain unto itself, and unto its successors and assigns, forever, the right and privilege of
demolishing and/or removing any utility or utility line or portion thereof in, on, under, over or
across the Dedicated Property without any charge, cost, consequence or obligation for replacing
or repairing the same, regardless of whether such utility or utility line was constructed within an
"approved" location, if and when demolition and/or removal of any such utility or utility line or
portion thereof is reasonably necessary for the construction, intallation, operation, maintenance
and/or repair of any public street improvement or any public or private drainage improvement
regardless of who makes any such improvement or the source of funding therefor.
EXECUTED on this day of 32007.
DELTIC TIMBER CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation
David V. Meghreblian, Vice President
-2-
EXHIBIT "A"
-3-
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
STATE OF ARKANSAS )
)ss.
COUNTY OF PULASKI )
On this day of , 2007, before me, the undersigned Notary
Public, personally appeared DAVID V. MEGHREBLIAN, to me well known, who stated that he
was the Vice President of DELTIC TIMBER CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, whose
mailing address is 210 East Elm Street, El Dorado, Arkansas 71730, and that he was duly
authorized in such capacity to execute the foregoing instrument for and in the name and behalf of
said corporation, and further stated and acknowledged to me that they had so executed the same
for the consideration, uses and purposes set forth therein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal.
My Commission Expires:
[SEAL]
Notary Public
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
I certify under penalty of false swearing that the legally correct amount of documentary
stamps have been placed on this instrument.
Agent for Grantee
-4-
6/04/07
DELTIC FARM dr TIMBER CO., INC
INST. NO. 95 62663
N 24'23'45" W
29.41'
JOE 0. WHISENHUNT AND
MARGARET H. WHISENHUNT
INST. NO, 20D6056B36
EXHIBIT "A"
Description: Dedicated Property
Part of the NEYa NEY of Section 36, T -2-N, R -14-W, Pulaski County,
Arkansas being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the SE corner of the NEANE)'4 of said Section 36; thence
N 88'52'00 W along the south line of said NFY. Nits, a distance of
703.03 feet to the east right-of-way line of Kirk Road for the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence continue N 88'52'00" W, along said south line also being
the north right -of --way line of Kirk Road, a distance of 99.71 feet; thence
N 24'23'45" W. a distance of 29.41 feet to the west right-of-woy line of
Champlin Drive; thence N 65'36'15" E along the south right-of-way line of
Champlin Drive, a distance of 90.00 feet to the east right-of-way line of
Champlin Drive; thence S 24'23'45" E, a distance of 72.40 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.105 Acres (4,581 sq, ft.) more or less.
40 20 0 40 80
-3-
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 " = 40`
G:\2066�06-115\North 12a\Survey\0e4 Ex 1.dwg
CHENAL DEVELOPMENT. LLC
INST. NO. 2000061072
DEDICATED PROPERTY ��� ��5`;
SE CORNER
NE1/4 NE1/4,
SECTION 36,
T -2-N, R -14-W,
71 ,
PULASKI COUNTY,
N 88.52'00" W
ARKANSAS
N 88'52'00" W
703.03'— /
FOUND•
5/8' REBAR
P.O.B.
JOE D. WHISENHUNT AND
MARGARET H. WHISENHUNT
INST, NO. 2406656856
1
yLP
z
Description: Dedicated Property
Part of the NEYa NEY of Section 36, T -2-N, R -14-W, Pulaski County,
Arkansas being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the SE corner of the NEANE)'4 of said Section 36; thence
N 88'52'00 W along the south line of said NFY. Nits, a distance of
703.03 feet to the east right-of-way line of Kirk Road for the POINT OF
BEGINNING; thence continue N 88'52'00" W, along said south line also being
the north right -of --way line of Kirk Road, a distance of 99.71 feet; thence
N 24'23'45" W. a distance of 29.41 feet to the west right-of-woy line of
Champlin Drive; thence N 65'36'15" E along the south right-of-way line of
Champlin Drive, a distance of 90.00 feet to the east right-of-way line of
Champlin Drive; thence S 24'23'45" E, a distance of 72.40 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING, containing 0.105 Acres (4,581 sq, ft.) more or less.
40 20 0 40 80
-3-
GRAPHIC SCALE 1 " = 40`
G:\2066�06-115\North 12a\Survey\0e4 Ex 1.dwg
EDW( 90 L.
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
ROBERT S. LINDSEY
(1913 - 1991)
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
ALSTON JENNINGS
(1917-2004)
JOHN G. LILE
GORDON S. RATHER, JR.
ROGER A. GLASGOW
200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300
ALSTON JENNINGS, 1R.
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699
JOHN R. TISDALE
(501) 371-0808 FAX (501) 376-9442
JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III
LEE J. MULDROW
903 NORTH 47TH STREET, SUITE 101
N.M. NORTON
ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756
CHARLES C. PRICE (1)
(479) 986-0888 FAX (479) 986-8932
CHARLES T. COLEMAN
JAMES 1: GLOVER
www.wij.com
EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR.
GREGORY T. JONES (2)
BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN (3)
WALTER McSPADDEN
OF COUNSEL
JOHN D. DAVIS
RONALD A. MAY
JUDY SIMMONS HENRY
ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR.
KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER
BRUCE R. LINDSEY (2)
RAY F. COX, 1R. (7)
JUDY ROBINSON WILBER
TROY A. PRICE
JAMES R. VAN DOVER
KATHRYN A. PRYOR
ELGIN R. CLEMONS, 1R.(6)
J. MARK DAVIS (3)
CHARLES S. BOHANNON (3)
Writer's Direct Diel No. 501-212-1310
jspivey®wlj.com
Reply to Little Rock Office
July 3, 2007
Mr. Richard C. Downing, P.A.
Attorney at Law
425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
RE: Your letter of June 25, 2007 concerning Champlin Drive
Dear Dick:
CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK (4)
JERRY J. SALLINGS
WILLIAM STUART JACKSON
MICHAEL D. BARNES
STEPHEN R. LANCASTER
KYLE R. WILSON
C. TAD BOHANNON (3)
J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY (7)
M. SEAN HATCH
J. ANDREW VINES
MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING (5)
SCOTT ANDREW IRBY
PATRICK D. WILSON
DAVID P. GLOVER
REGINA A. YOUNG
PAUL D. MORRIS
EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG
DAWN D. JACKSON
CALEY B. VO
GARY D. MARTS, JR.
ERIC BERGER
P. DELANNA PADILLA
MARK N. OHRENBERGER
KATHRYN M. MARTINEZ
JEFFREY D. WOOD
Also licensed to Practice in
I Michigan
2 District of Columbia
3 Teras
4 New York
5 North Carolina
6 Licensed in New York only
7 Licensed to practice before the United
States Parent and Trademark Office
Your letter of June 25, 2007 has been referred to me by our client, Deltic Timber Corporation,
for response. Deltic's engineers are currently reviewing the company's and the City's records
with respect to the "error" you described in your letter and will attempt to provide you with an
appropriate response as quickly as possible.
Meanwhile, it is relevant to Deltic to better understand if it is still your client's intention to
complete access to the Fellowship Bible Church property from Wellington Drive, Kirk Road
and Systems Drive contemporaneously with the completion of access via Champlin Drive. It is
my best recollection that your client committed to complete access to the Fellowship property
from all four directions and to complete the promised improvements to Chenal Parkway and
Kanis Road by the time construction at Fellowship was completed. Is this still the plan and are
your clients on schedule to complete these improvements?
707203-v1
f
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
July 3, 2007
Page 2
Thanks for your detailed explanation and I look forward to speaking with you about this as
soon as reasonably possible.
Cordially,
WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
--'� �t
John William Spivey III
JWS:jlh
cc: Tim Daters
Vince Floriani - City Public Works Dept.
Walter Malone - City Planning Dept.
Tony Bozynski - City Planning Dept.
Mike Robinson - Fellowship Bible Church
Dave Megreblian
707203-v1
FROM : Jun. 15 2006 03:26PM P3
Save the Parkway9
Coalition
Know the facts about commercial rezoning
affecting Chenal. iarl<way and Rahling Road:
I. Orderly development that properly manages traffic and iricreases•property- .
values has always been part of the long-term master plan along the Chenal
Parkway corridor. But that 20 -year plan is.now.under attack by the ro'posed
rezoning.df property W,unspeclfed commercial purposes..
2. llVel# Igtent,ioned, properly planned Iand,use lR the.ChPark�+ray corridor is
aPPrgpriate.•including puns €.pt the riew- location of i=ello"hip•$iWe Church,
which.we'whole-heartedl _ ' Uppai- and v+relcome to the, neighborhood. .
3, Hgweye'r;=�ddifiorial tracts:bf`i cT'jri-the:deveioper's °paakage-deal" haire Hot'.
been, researched, s0rvf*i d;'piatted of OlMned in'a time ly acid tiiorou h
rri neer. The result? Gridlock. traf�-¢.pro6lem$ creating intersection bottlenecks
an"d-a'potenti�I riegafive..lmpa t'gn.(psidaf tial property values] -
• t?Utapproprlate.pla�r3i11g.naw,-tha proposed rezoning of.60-acres for
cbii�mercial derrelopmeht ►ti+[il create unwanted pc�r�9estivn in 'our aria. Plus,
tfie deYelopers;have failed tp:pravicle in timely manner oompl ke surveys,
cvn&ides-atian of Ro6k Creek-, and.specifiC:proposaWfor the- of:bdildir#gs
-:,and lots to lie hullt. fri facf;:tli$ P{anr{ing )Camrnlssiari had norf' ."of
tFise impor!ant docuinerrtsrior,ta t#ieir rushedpprpval.of rezoriirig retiues#$. .-
5. We•5upport l= ]low hip i3ible,-Church's plans liar relocation: lNe,do.Rot sttppor#
whntesarle Commer ial re onirig-without aonsideratlon o Elie long-term mestar:
'. plan and without th2'#Y.pe:of plan�nitig ttia#-co' ld-6elp--avoid jdestrgying fhe''tree
Pried medians of the,-Ra�ay,.a�ea#ing traffic bottle_ nt:cks: and the paving of a
• triator€fy:of the ]arid.for pa#:kin�=lots, •: ..:... .... .. •
Sign up':and.join the Save the P,arkwayGoalitiorr. Cei's ask•the-City Board to...
Slow do.w.n!'Get.the faCtsl Save the*Parkway!
;Ca�l.the itf[6 Rdck City tli 60prs at a7l-45 f D:
W ite the Directors of City'Hall; 5L10 LN. Marieharn. St., Little Rack, -AR 72201
Q#reotor5: J#m palfay, Mayo; $arbara Gr,.lfice+layar; loan Adcock,
Brad.Cazoit;111 11e.F{iriton,-Stacy Hurst,.Michael.Kdck, [lean kumpuris,
JohnnieP..ugh, Gana0 've-� tewart, U. (Brenda) Wyrick
Et
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
January 28, 2009
Mr. Robert Brown
Development Consultants Inc.
2200 Rodney Parham Road, Suite 220
Little Rock, AR 72212
Re: Shackleford Farms PZD Approvals
DCI Project #06-115
Dear Mr. Brown:
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
On June 27, 2006, the Little Rock Board of Directors adopted Ordinance No. 19,558
titled Shackleford Farms 30.8 Acres Long -form PCD (Z -5617-A), Ordinance No. 19,560
titled Shackleford Farms Long -form POD (Z -4804-F) and Ordinance No. 19,561 titled
Shackleford Farms Long -form PCD (Z -4807-G). Per Section 36-454(e) of the Little
Rock Code of Ordinances, a Final Development Plan must be submitted within three (3)
years from the date of passage of the ordinance providing the preliminary approval. All
requests for extensions of time must be submitted in writing to the Planning
Commission and received not less than ninety (90) days prior to the first expiration date.
The Commission may grant one (1) extension of not more than two (2) years. Failure of
the applicant to file a timely extension shall be cause for revocation of the PUD as
provided in Chapter 36-458.
It is the City's position the infrastructure improvements currently under construction do
not constitute the Final Development Plan for these three projects. To avoid an
expiration of the previous approvals, staff must receive a request for time extensions no
later than March 27, 2009. Staff will then place your requests on the next available
Planning Commission docket to be considered for an extension of time.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
T1onyynZ
Director of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
DATE: April 4, 2006
❑ ENTERGY (2)
❑ ARKLA
❑ Southwestern Bell Telephone (2)
❑ Central Arkansas Water
❑ Little Rock Wastewater
❑ Pulaski County Planning
❑ Little Rock Fire Department
❑ Public Works: Engineering, Traffic (2)
❑ Parks and Recreation Department
❑ Planning and Development — Site Plan
❑ Planning and Development Graphics
❑ CATA
TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN:
NAME: Shackleford Farms Long -form PCD — 30.26 Acres
TYPE OF ISSUE: Planned Commercial Development -
Conceptual
FILE NUMBER: Z -4807-G
LOCATION: North of Wellington Hills Road, East of the
Villages of Wellington Subdivision
Review
On May 11, 2006 the Little Rock Planning Commission will consider the above referenced issue.
NOTE: The Interdepartmental Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on April 14, 2006.
NOTE: The Subdivision Committee Meeting at which this issue will be discussed will be held on April 20, 2006.
A copy of the plan for the referenced issue is enclosed for your consideration, and your comments and/or
recommendations will be appreciated.
Skerely,Dmes
Subdivision Administrator
(Please respond below and return this letter with your comments for our records.)
Approved as Submitted. PLEASE RETURN COMMENTS BY April 17, 2006.
Easement (s) required (See attached plat or description.)
*To all utilities. If an easement is requested which is in excess of 10 feet in width, provide justification for the
easement or the request will not be included in the Planning Commission agenda.
Comments:
By:
Enclosure
RICHARD C. DONNING, P.A.
A Professional Corporation
ATTORNEY AT LAW
425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE
SUITE 3310
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
TELEPHONE: 501/372-2066
FAX: 501/376-6420
E-MAIL: rudowni[t�r []a�_s_nina-!_i}y.can:
June 25, 2007
David V. Meghreblian
Deltic Timber Corporation
#7 Chenal Club Blvd.
Little Rock, AR 72223
Re: Champlin Drive/Whisenhunt
Dear Mr. Meghreblian:
Z'AQO^-�,
RICHARD C. DOWNING
I represent Joe and Margaret Whisenhunt. As you know, they are currently
developing the old Shackleford farm property which is adjacent to a portion of Deltic
Timber Corporation's Chenal Valley property. In the course of planning for their
development, an error was discovered. The error, involving the completion of Champlin
Drive, affects both their property and yours. Please allow me to explain.
Attached is a copy of Deltic's Dedication Plat (F-578 / 99-067159). You will
note it shows the location of Champlin Drive. In addition, I am enclosing a copy of
Deltic's Sixth Supplemental Bill of Assurance (99-067159 / F-578) that dedicated the
lands shown on the Dedication Plat to the City of Little Rock. Further, I am enclosing a
copy of the Whisenhunts' Dedication Deed (2006056974) dedicating the lands for Kirk
Road / Champlin Drive to their boundary line.
The error is in the dedication for Champlin Drive. According to the Dedication
Plat and Bill of Assurance, as to Champlin Drive, the land dedicated does not extend to
Deltic's boundary line. Rather, it is "short." I don't think any one would dispute that
Champlin Drive, per the master street plan and your planning requests, was to be
dedicated and constructed to the Deltic boundary line.
We, with your cooperation, wish to correct this error. The first step is an
additional dedication deed. Please find attached two proposed Dedication Deeds (two
were prepared because we didn't know if you or Mr. Dillon signed). The deeds dedicate,
to the City of Little Rock, the land necessary to complete the dedication of Champlin
Drive to Deltic's boundary line. Exhibit "A" to the attached Dedication Deed provides
David V. Meghreblian
June 25, 2007
Page 2
the legal description necessary for the dedication. Exhibit "A" clearly shows and
describes the error and the property to be dedicated to the City. Of course, we expect you
to review all of this and, after your review, we feel confident that you will concur that an
error was made and execute the appropriate deed. I also urge you to provide me with
your comments. In that regard, I have taken the liberty to inform persons interested in
correcting this error.
The second step involves constructing the Champlin Drive improvements. As
you know, my client is currently "moving dirt" and constructing improvements to its
property. Fellowship Bible Church has an interest in the timely construction of these
improvements. These improvements include Kirk road which will, as anticipated,
connect to Champlin Drive. My client is willing to work with you regarding construction
of Champlin Drive at our boundary line. A resolution is needed and my client is willing
to work with Deltic to achieve a mutually beneficial resolution of this error and to the
mutually satisfactory construction of the Champlin Drive improvements.
I shall await your response. Thank you, in advance, for your attention to this
matter.
Richard
C. Downing
RCD:jm
Enc.
Cc: Tim Daters
Vince Florian
Walter Malone
Tony Bozynski
Mike Robinson
Mark Wright
W. and Mrs. Whisenhunt
Doug Robertson
. nenmmanw ... y a � ■ ra• .�
�A]
� I B to
y� � ��0 C■G4q ems? � `"^'" � �SW1 � t � ` .�^"'
S � ioo 13i q � .RM'.'e` tlTIH3H�
N
t -N CD
W
Z ro w b --mix a. way
a y ' ri
tV g
b '-C L38
TIP, m
'X� Pm
^ S -
8
s+
is
: 56668
1 � 7
CnjreA
E
8
gp k�
5pki
� I B to
y� � ��0 C■G4q ems? � `"^'" � �SW1 � t � ` .�^"'
S � ioo 13i q � .RM'.'e` tlTIH3H�
N
t -N CD
W
Z ro w b --mix a. way
a y ' ri
tV g
b '-C L38
TIP, m
'X� Pm
^ S -
8
�.� a9e6�915s:t�# 1,'• • �•:
(� riled i Reeorded in =r' 0
ofIteiAl Records of .hr• 0
MOLTH 5TALEY
MAW COUNTY = � �
SIX-r1I SU'PPLEMFXrAL BILL OF A.�Mff! iIERR Za
OF
CHENAL VALLEY COMMERCIAL. NEIGHBORHOOD .' {�,��.•'
...,�..,.��0
This Sixth Supplement to Bill of Assurance of Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood
is made by Deltic Timber Corporation, formerly known as Deltic Farm and Timber Co., Inc., (the
"Developer' or the "Declarant") as hereinafter set forth.
WHEREAS, Developer caused to he filed in the office of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio
Recorder of Pulaski County. Arkansas that certain Bill of Assurance of Chenal Valley Commercial
Neighborhood on September .0, 1996 as Instrument No. 96 68199 {the "Original Bill of
Assurance") creating the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood, a First Supplemental Bill of
Assurance on February 19. 1997 as Instrument No. 97-10852, a Second Supplemental Bill of
Assurance on November 7. 1997 as Instrument No. 97-07424.3, a Third Supplemental Bill of
Assurance or September 2.1. 1998 as Instrument No. 98-07.3071, a Fourth Supplemental Bill of
Assurance on December 22, 1998 as Instrument No. 98.101872, and a Fifth Supplemental Bill
of Assurance on December 31. 1998 as instrument No. 98-103569. e
WHEREAS, the following real property is pan of the Chenal Valley Commercial
Neighborhood and subject to the Original Bill of Assurance, to Wit:
RIGHT. OF WAY DEDICATION FOR PART OF RAlfLING ROAD, CHENAL
VALLEY DRIVE. PEBBLE BEACII DRIVE AND CHAMPLIN DRIVE. IN
I •< SECTIONS 30 AND 31. T-2-14. R -13-W AND IN SECTIONS 25 AND 26, T -2-
N. R -14-W, PULASKI COUNTY ARKANSAS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS: STARTING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
•yr FRACTIONAL NW I14 N W 114 SECTION 19. T•2 -N, R -13-W; THENCE
85 59'25"�' ALONG Tilt Sri[.;T44 LINT THEREOF, 380.12 FT, TO THE
_# POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE RIGHT OF WRY DESCRIBED HEREIN;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 773.51 FT. RADIUS CURVE
awl TO THE LEFT. A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S03*49'43'W,
F t Dmi PR-rtAi1r4` -* %-:
251
588.52 FT.; THENCE S18 -031'51"E, 1387,79 i'T.; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG TE.: ARC OF A 2909.79 FT. RADIUS CURVE
TO THE RIGHT, A CHORD BEARING .AND DISTANCE OF S18ol2'57"E,
31.99 FT.; THENCE S22o3l'02"E. 102.23 FT.; THENCE S53o22'45"E, 74.22
FT.; THENCE N87c59'53"E. 50.99 FT.: THENCE N76o ' 1' 17"E, 76.83 FT. TO
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 45. CHENAL RIDGE ADDITION,
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; THENCE S12o37'59"E ALONG THE WEST
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE, 60.01 FT. TO THE
SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE THEREOF: THENCE S76o4l'17"W, 76.83
FT.; THENCE S65o22'41"W, 25.50 FT.: THENCE S26oIT32"W, 95.23 FT.;
THENCE S05al4'35"E, 101.45 FT.; THENCE SO4o5,1'54"E, 152.63 FT.;
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 2909.79 FT, RADIUS
CURVE TO THE RIGHT. A CHCRD BEARING AND DIS'T'ANCE OF
SO4o13'57"E, 271.32 FT.; THENCE SOlo33'37"E, 317.68 FT.; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OFA 999.93 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE
RIGHT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCEOFSII°30'31"W, 452.21 FT.;
THENCE S24o34'39"W, 1229,79!7r.: THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG
THE :IRC OF A 999.93 FT. RADIUS CURVE) 0 THE RIGHT, A CHORD
BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S4•1n53"23"W, 394.22 FT.; THENCE
S65 --12'07"W, 1470.44 Fr.. THENCE S50o42'50"W, 52.47 FT.; THENCE
SOUTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 58.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE
LEFT, A CHORD BEARI;,;G AND DISTANCE OF S15o33'00"W, 73.77 FT.;
THENCE S24o10'23"E. 662.16 FT.: THENCE S65°49'37"W, 90.00 FT.;
THENCE 424° 10'23"W, 659.88 FT.: THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
THE ARC OF A 58.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD
BEARING AND DISTANCE OF N70012'32"W, 83.54 FT.; THENCE
S65^12'07"1V, 129.S9 Ff., THENCE S70o4l'08"W, 125.57 FT.; THENCE
S65*12'07"W, 510.09 FT.: THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC
OF A 999.93 Fr. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, A CHORD BEARING
AND DISTANCE OF 512041'25"W, 260.64 FT.; THENCE S80010'44"W,
1019.48 FT.; fHF.NCE S09o49'16"E, 20.00 FT.; THENCE S80o10'44"W,
279.06 FT.; THENCE SOU T HWTSTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 889.93
FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LIEFT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE
OF S69o16'02"N\', 3:.6.91 FT.; THENCE S58o21'21"W, 23.67 FT.; THENCE
S34=01'06"«', 47.80 FT. TO THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF CHENAL
PARKWAY. THENCE N31038'39'W ALONG SAID EAST RIGHT OF WAY
LINE, 158.53FT. ;THENCEN7.3x22'05"E,32.00FT.:THENCE N58o2l'21"E,
36.47 FT.: THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 1019.93
FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGPT, A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCEOF N69014'02' E, 386.13 FT. ; TIIENCE N80o 10'44"E, 279.06 FT.;
THENCE S09o49' 16"E, 20.00 FT.;, THENCE, ::8001044"E, 1057.48 FT.;
THENCE N63041'02"E, 45.11 FT; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC
OF A 58.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING AND
F HONE YATP DELI IC, -,Ml" •N:
252
DISTANCE OF NIS --11-44"E, 82.72 F['.; THENCE N27oIT34"W, 42.07 FT.;
THENCE N21c47'33"1V, 125.20 FT.; THENCE N27017'34"W, 206.30 FT.:
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF ,•A 1175.92 FT, RADIUS
CURVE TO THE RIGHT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF
N20c35'32"W, 274.46 FT. TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT 7A,
CHENAL VALLEY ADDITION; THENCE N74-35'02"EA LONG THESOUTH
RIGHT OF WAY LIVE OF CHENAL VALLEY DRIVE, 60.03 FT. TO THE
EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE THEREOF; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY
ALONG THE .ARC OF A 1115.92 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT. A
CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S20o33'00"E, 262.05 FT.: THENCE
S27cl7'34"E. 326.57 Ff.; THENCE S34c35'31"E, 73.06 FT.; THENCE
SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF .-A 58.00 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO
THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF S72c36'35"E, 71.45
FT.; THENCE N69c22'20"E, 73.31 FT.; THENCE N65c12'07"E, 51.22 FT.;
THENCE N70c34'49"E, 74.68 FT.; THENCE N65c12'07"E, 2266.50 FT.;
THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 909.93 FT. RADIUS
CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD BEARING AND DISTANCE OF
N44c53'23"E, 631.74 FT.: THENCE N24c34'39"E, 1229.79 FT.'; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF A 909.93 FT. RADIUS CURVE 1'0 THE
LEFT A CHORD BEARING .AND DISTANCE OF N1lo30'31 "E, 411.51 FT.;
THENCE NOlc33'37"W, 317.68 FT.; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG
THE .ARC OF A 2819.79 Ff. RADIUS CURVE TO THE LEFT, A CHORD
BFARING AND DISTANCE OF N10c02'44"W, 832.16 FT.; THENCE
N18c31'51"W, 1387,79 FT.; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG THE ARC OF
A 863.51 FT. RADIUS CURVE TO THE RIGHT, A CHORD BEARING AND
DISTANCE OF NO2c26'25"E, 618.10 FT. TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE
OF FRACTIONAL SW1/4 SWI/4. SECTION 19, T -2-N R -13-W; THENCE
S88c59'28"E, ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 98.33 FT. TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAIPTING 1,065,511 SQUARE FEET OR 24.4608 ACRES
MORE OR LESS.
WHEREAS, Developer files this Sixth Supplemental Bill of Assurance to reflect the
dedication of the above described real property to the public for use as streets and public
1
roadways. rt
NOW, THEREFORE, Developer, for and in consideration of the benefits to accrue to it,
its Successors and :Assigns, which benefits it acknowledges to be of value, has caused to be made
a Plat, showing a survey made by Paul M. White, Registered Laid Surveyor dated 8-18-01°1
P HOVE P�;'DELrIC:—'.dsgb.Z
ii
DOC{# 99867159
253
and bearing a Certificate of Approval executed by the Department of Comprehensive Planning of
the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and Ehowine the boundaries and dimensions of the Real
Property now being dedicated to the public as streets (the "Plat").
Developer herby donates and dedicates to the public an easement of way on, over and
under the streets on said Plat to be used as public streets so long as the Etreets are utilized and
maintained as public roadways by the City of Little Rock, Arkansas.
The filing of this Sixth Supplement to the Bill of Assurance of Chenal Valley Commercial
Neighborhood and Plat for record in the Office of Circuit Clerk and Ex -Officio Recorder of
Pulaski County, Arkansas. shall be a valid and complete delivery and dedication of the streets to
the public subject to the limitations herein set out.
Deltic Timber Purchasers executes this Sixth Supplement to the Bill of Assurance of
Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood for the purposes set forth in Paragraph 23 of the
Original Bill of Assurance.
EXECUTED this day of 1999.
DELTIC TINZBER CORPORATION
BY: 2 L_'
Ron L. Pearce, President
Attest:
P--iud -ty W karim of r k&w SWVArds
W. Bayless Ro e�Secretary ta"WbyUCAyefUttwp*:iasbdh�mo=m
$7 Of llr.wwft MNiskrrs est zshW by ft
4I1fRUQtIW !lode �PMWWv CorrrnLtom
F NONE P\TPOELTICcxn6dmq b.7 i
J
9