HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4923-A Application 6DOC# 2000027338
Exhibit "A-1"—continued
of Lot 26, Henry Mairosa Addition to tate City of Little Rock (as recorded in Plat Boole 1, Paga 62) and the
Southwest corner of an alley (of 20 foot width) running is an East-West direction; thence North 00 degrees 29
minutes East and along the East right of way line of McKinley Suva and parallel with the West lima of the
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 20.0 fea to the Northwest corner of the alley and the Southwest
corner of Lot 1, Henry Mcirose Addition; thence South 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds East and along the
North line of said Eras -West alley and the South Una of Lou 1, 2, 3, 4, S. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Henry Meirose
Addition to tha City of Little Rock, 516.39 feet; thewe South 01 degrees 24 minutes 36 seconds West for 20.00
feet to a point on the North line of Lot 16, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock and a point on the
South line of said East-West alley; thence North 88 degrm 50 minutes 28 seconds West and along the North
line of Leta 16 through 28, inclusive, Henry Meiroso Addition to the City of Little Rock and the South line of
said East -Wert alley for 516.07 feet to the Point of Beginning, LESS AND EXCEPT Part of Tract D, Park Plaz
Addition in the City of Little Rack, Pulaski County, Arkansas, as recorded in Plat Book C at Page 519, being
more particularly described as follow::
Beginning at the Northwest comer of the Tract A, Paris Plaza Addition; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes 00
seconds Fast along the existing Fut right -0E -way line of McKinley Street 183.00 fret; thence 05 degrees 10
minutes 05 seconds East along the proposed East right-of-way line of McKinley Street 184.17 Ceet; thence
North 88 degrees 40 minutes 09 sw-ovAs West 18.14 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10.0577 acres,
including East-West alley and 9.8207 acres, excluding the alley, now platted as Tract B and Pert of Tract D of
Park Plaza Addition. Little Rack, Pulaski County, Arkansm, as recorded in Plat Book C-519, records of Pulaskc
County, Arkansas,
Tract 6 (Easement):
TOGETHER WITH rights of ingrm and egress as set forth in that certain Conumcdon, Operation, and
Reciprocal Elm - ent Agractnent retarded as Instntment No. 86-82744 and amended by First Amendment to
Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded as Itis =cnt No. 88-39542. over and
across the following described lands:
A part of the Northeast � of the NarthtM Quebec, Suction 1, Townshila l North. Ratigc 13 west, Pulaak
county, Arkansas marc p,rticu>,riy described as follows; Fmm the Southeast carrier of the uid Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter•, tun thetaca North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the Sora
line of the said NorduA t Qan=tas of the Northcact Quarter uisl the cenlerlix of West Markham Street (of 60
feet width) for 651.67 feat; thence North 01 degmes 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 30.0 fact to the North righ
of way iron of West Markham StrtZ., ihem;00 North 01 deg= 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 144.81 feet;
thence North 88 deg um 38 minuum 23 seconds West for 160.36 fest to a point which is in line with ibw East
wall of a two story brick building occupied by Dillard Depot Stores. Inc.; thence North 01 degrees 24
minutes 36 seconds East and slang the East will projected North for 594.02 feet to the North liar sof an East-
West alley and a point on the South line of Lot 11, Henry Meirosa Addition to tate City of Little Rock; thZnce
South 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 smaonds Ems and alan.g the South line of Lou 11, 12 and 13, HenrY Meirosr.
,addition to the City of Little Tock, pulamid County, tirkaosas, and the North liras of the East-West alley for
—continued
Doc# 2000027338
Exhtbil "A-1"—contilwed
1 14.1 1 feet to the SoVthaM corner of maid Lot 13; thence North 00 do
line of said Lot 13 and the Wart right afwa line of Ss �� mi>lutes Eut along Eaxi
Y trtxt for 26.12 feet to a points d=a South 89
degrecs 03 n-iaums 32 arconds East for 637.63 feet to the Weat tight of way line 0f Universiry Avenue (of 80
Foot width) and 441.0 feet West of the East line of the Northem Quartan of the Noriheast
r
and along the West right of way line of University Avenue and pamllei with the East fine 0f the NorthocartoLith
Quamu 0 the Northeast Quarte for 55.00 to the Point of Beginning, tbertce North 89 degrees 43 minutes 32
seconds West for 200.00 Feet; tb=c South 41 degrees 21 minute: 37 tends Westfor 200.00 feet: theme
88 degrees 38 minutra Z3 sacan4is West for 59.4r� feet; theaca South Cit degrees 26 minutes 04 second$
Wes[ for 368.75 f8t; thence Notch 88 dsgreft 38 minutes 23 seconds West far 69.86 feet; thence South 01
degrees 21 minutes 37 socanda West for 150.00 feet; thence South 88 degrea 38 minute 23 seconds Haat for
143.81 foal; thence North 41 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East far 129.01 feat; chance South 88 degrcrs 36
along the West right of way
minutes 23 seconds East far 200.00 feet to the West right of way line of University Avenue; rhaice North encs
Una of University Avenue and parallel with tine Eut line of the Northeart Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter for 591.37 feet to the Point of Beginning. containing 3.7449 acres, more or leas, now
platted as Tract F of Paris Playa Addition, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkxnj s, ar recorded in Plat Record C-
519. re-carda of Pululd County, Argansu.
2000@55536
6818312$60 89:33:17 AK
Filed B Recorded in
Official Records Of
CAROLYN STALEY
PULASKI Eau",
CIRCUIT/COUNTY C"RK
Fees $34.00
AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
BETWEEN
PARK PLAZA MALL, LLC
AND
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK
DATED: AS OF JULY 1, 2000
PREPARED BY AND UPON RECORDATION RETURN TO:
WINSTON & STRAWN
200 PARK AVENUE
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10166
ATTN: COREY A. TESSLER, ESQ.
217301.4
AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS
THIS AMENDMENT TO ASSIGNMENT OF LEASES AND RENTS (the
"Amendment") made as of the 1st day of July, 2000 by and between PARK PLAZA MALL,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Borrower"), having an address at c/o First Union
Real Estate Equity and Assignment Investments, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1416, New York, New
York 10176 and FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK, a national banking association
("Lender"), having an address at One First Union Center DC6, 301 South College Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28288-0166.
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2000 (the "Closing Date"), Lender made a loan to Borrower
evidenced by a promissory note dated April 20, 2000 (the "Note") in the original principal
amount of FORTY-TWO MILLION AND 00/100 DOLLARS ($42,000,000.00) (the "Loan") in
connection with the property commonly known as Park Plaza Mall more particularly described on
Exhibit A annexed hereto and made a part hereof (the "Premises"); and
WHEREAS, concurrently with the execution and delivery of the Note, Borrower made
and delivered to Lender, among other things;
(i) that certain Assignment of Leases and Rents (the
"Assignment"), dated as of April 20, 2000 encumbering the Property, recorded
as Document Number 2000027338 in the Public Records of Pulaski County,
Arkansas; and
(ii) all other documents executed and delivered by Borrower that
evidence, secure, guarantee or otherwise relate to the Loan which together with
the Assignment, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Loan
Documents".
WHEREAS, the current unpaid principal amount of the Loan is $41,961,102.59.
WHEREAS, Lender has agreed to, among other things, increase the amount of the Loan
evidenced by the Note by $500,000 from $41,961,102.59 to $42,461,102.59; and
NOW, THEREOF, in consideration of the agreements herein contained and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereby agree as follows:
1. All of the "WHEREAS" paragraphs set forth above are hereby
incorporated in this Amendment.
2
217301.4
2. Borrower hereby ratifies and confirms all of its undertakings, obligations,
agreements, guarantees and indemnities set forth in all of the Assignment and hereby confirms
that the Assignment, and all of Borrower's undertakings pursuant thereto, remain in full force and
effect.
3. The first "Whereas" clause of the Assignment, shall be modified by the
deletion of the phrase "Forty -Two Million and 00/100 Dollars ($42,000,000)", and the insertion
of the phrase "Forty -Two Million Four Hundred Sixty -One Thousand One Hundred Two and
59/100 Dollars ($42,461,102.59)."
4. Except as modified and supplemented hereby, all of the terms, covenants,
conditions, indemnities and agreements contained in the Assignment shall remain unmodified and
in full force and effect.
5. Hereafter (i) all references in the Assignment and in the Loan Documents
to the Assignment shall be deemed to include the Assignment, as modified by this Amendment
and (ii) all references in the Loan Documents to the term "Loan Documents" shall be deemed to
include this Amendment.
6. Borrower hereby warrants and represents that (i) it has no defense, offset
or counterclaim to its undertakings, obligations, agreements, guarantees or indemnities or the
enforcement of Lender's rights and/or remedies under the Assignment or this Amendment, (ii)
the Assignment as herein ratified and confirmed is a legal, valid and binding obligation of
Borrower and (iii) the covenants, representations and warranties set forth in the Assignment are
true and correct in all material respects as of the date hereof.
7. Borrower hereby represents and warrants to the Lender that the execution,
delivery and performance of this Amendment has been duly authorized by all necessary and
proper action on the part of Borrower and that the execution, delivery and performance by
Borrower of this Amendment (i) will not violate any provision of any applicable law or
regulation or of any order, writ, judgment, injunction or decree of any governmental authority to
which Borrower is subject, (ii) will not violate any provisions of the organizational documents of
Borrower, and (iii) will not violate any provision of, or constitute a default under any contract,
agreement or other undertakings to which Borrower is a party or which is binding any property
of upon Borrower or upon any of Borrower's assets.
8. Any provision of this Amendment which is prohibited or unenforceable in
any jurisdiction or prohibited or unenforceable as to any person or entity shall, as to such
jurisdiction, person or entity, be ineffective to the extent of such prohibition or unenforceability
without invalidating the remaining provisions hereof or affecting the validity or enforceability of
such provisions in any other jurisdiction or as to any other person or entity.
9. THIS AMENDMENT WILL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PROVIDED
THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF SUCH LAWS MAY NOW OR HEREAFTER BE
PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW, SUCH FEDERAL LAW SHALL SO GOVERN AND BE
3
217301.4
CONTROLLING, AND PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE LAWS OF THE STATE IN
WHICH THE PREMISES IS LOCATED SHALL GOVERN AS TO THE CREATION,
PRIORITY AND ENFORCEMENT OF LIENS AND SECURITY INTERESTS IN THE
MORTGAGED PROPERTY LOCATED IN SUCH STATE.
10. This Amendment shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of
Borrower and Lender and their respective successors and assigns.
11. BORROWER AND LENDER TO THE FULL EXTENT
PERMITTED BY LAW, HEREBY KNOWINGLY, INTENTIONALLY AND
VOLUNTARILY, WITH AND UPON THE ADVICE OF COMPETENT COUNSEL,
WAIVE, RELINQUISH AND FOREVER FORGO THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY
IN ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDING BASED UPON, ARISING OUT OF, OR IN ANY
WAY RELATING TO THIS AMENDMENT OR ANY CONDUCT, ACT OR OMISSION
OF LENDER, OR ANY OF ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, PARTNERS, MEMBERS,
EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR ATTORNEYS, OR ANY OTHER PERSONS AFFILIATED
WITH LENDER, IN EACH OF THE FOREGOING CASES, WHETHER SOUNDING IN
CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE.
12. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which,
when so executed, shall be deemed an original, and all of which shall together constitute one and
the same document, and shall be binding on the signatories; and the signature of any part to any
counterpart shall be deemed a signature to, and may be appended to, any other counterpart.
4
217301.4
IN WITNESS HEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by each of the
undersigned as of the date first above written.
PARK PLAZA MALL, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: Park Plaza 3, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company,
its general manager
By:
Name: Anne NZ er
Title: Execut' e Vice President
LENDER:
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK,
a national banking association
By:
Name:
Title:
217301.4
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) SS
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
On this day personally appeared before me, a Notary Public, within and for the County
and State aforesaid, duly qualified, commissioner and acting, Anne N. Zahner, to me
personally well known and who acknowledged that she was the Executive Vice President of
Park Plaza 3, LLC, who is the general manager of Park Plaza Mall, LLC and was duly
authorized as such to execute the foregoing instrument for, and in the name and behalf of said
company further stated and acknowledged that she has so signed, executed and delivered said
foregoing instrument for the consideration and purposes therein mentioned and set forth.
WITNESS my hand and official seal on this � day of July, 2000.
(SEAL)
NOTARY PUBLIC
ROSALIE SOUDERS
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01505697900
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ) Qualified in New Ybrk County ��
) SS Commission Expires February 28, 20 67
COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG )
I, a Notary Public in and for said county and state do hereby certify that WA�k v^ QcJW'L-m-Q-
personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged that he is theof
First Union National Bank, a national banking association, and that by authority duly given and
as the act of First Union National Bank, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its
and acknowledged the execution of the foregoing instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal on this `;0 day of July, 2000.
n
217301.4
�"'Q'Q _ SEAL)
N A Y PUBLIC
NADG)A JAMES
Notary PUbliC, Srace of New York
Qualified iin1NewDYork County
clalficate Fiied in New York Courcy
Com'"ission Expires 3/9:2oco-L
p,,' rl
Ex
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
217301.4
-��TA c Cf rl rt 1-7 v-Pli.70
EXHIBIT "A"
Tract 1(Reserve Tract "A"—Fee simple)
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 1 North, Range 13 West, Pulaski
County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: From the Southeast corner of the said Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, run thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the South
line of the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the centerline of West Markham Street (of 60
foot width) for 651.67 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 30.0 feet to the North right
of way line of West Markham Street; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the North
right of way line of West Markham Street for 264.08 feet; thence North 01 degree 21 minutes 37 seconds East
for 42.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for 250.64 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East for 168.54 feet; thence North 88 degrees 37 minutes 06 seconds West
for 150.11 feet to the East right of way line of McKinley Street (of 30.0 foot width) and a point 15.0 feet East of
the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 00 degrees 29 minutes West and
along the East right of way line of McKinley Street and parallel with the West line of the Northeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter for 210.60 feet to the North right of way line of West Markham Street and a point 30.0
feet North of the South line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South 88 degrees 38
minutes 23 seconds East and along the North right of way line of West Markham Street and parallel with the
South line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 150.11 feet; thence North 00 degrees 29
minutes East for 42.0 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.7256 acres, more or less. Now platted as part
of Tract A, Park Plaza Addition, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, as recorded in Plat Book C, Page 519,
records of Pulaski County, Arkansas.
LESS AND EXCEPT Part of Tract A, Park Plaza Addition in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas, as recorded in Plat Book C at Page 519 being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Southwest corner of the said Tract A, Park Plaza Addition; thence North 00 degrees 29
minutes 00 seconds East along the existing East right of way line of McKinley Street 210.6 feet; thence South
88 degrees 40 minutes 09 seconds East along the North line of said Tract A, 18.14 feet; thence along the
proposed East right of way line of McKinley Street the following three courses and distances: 1) South 05
degrees 10 minutes 05 seconds East 67.00 feet 2) South 00 degrees 10 minutes 54 seconds West 124.18 feet:
and 3) South 44 degrees 29 minutes 51 seconds East 28.43 feet to the North right-of-way line of West Markham
Street; thence along said North right-of-way line North 88 degrees 43 minutes 26 seconds West 45.49 feet to
the point of beginning.
Tract 2: (Reserve Tract `B"—Fee simple)
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 1 North, Range 13 West, Pulaski
County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: From the Southeast comer of the said Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, run thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the South
line of the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the centerline of West Markham Street (of 60.0
foot width) for 651.67 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 30.0 feet to the North right
of way line of West Markham Street; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the North
--continued—
Exhibit "A" --continued
right of way line of West Markham Street for 264.08 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence North 01 degrees 21
minutes 37 seconds East for 42.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for 250.64 feet;
thence South 00 degrees 29 minutes West for 42.00 feet to the North right of way line of West Markham Street;
thence South 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East and along the North right of way line of West Markham
Street and parallel with the South line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 250.00 feet, more or
less, to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.2413 acres, more or less, now platted as part of Tract D of Park
Plaza Addition, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, as recorded in Plat recorded C-519, records of Pulaski
County, Arkansas.
Tract 3: (Reserve Tract "C"—Fee simple)
Being Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock. Pulaski County, Arkansas, more
particularly described as follows: from the Southeast corner of the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter, run thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the South line of the said
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the centerline of West Markham Street (of 60.0 foot width) for
651.67 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 30.0 feet to the North right of way line of
West Markham Street; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the North right of way
line of West Markham Street for 264.08 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 42.0 feet;
thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for 250.64 feet: thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East
for 168.54 feet; thence North 88 degrees 37 minutes 06 seconds West for 150.11 feet to the East right of way
line of McKinley Street (of 30.0 foot width) and a point 15.0 feet East of the West line of the Northeast Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East and along the East right of way line of
McKinley Street and parallel with the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 556.51
feet to the Northwest comer of Lot 26, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock (as recorded in Plat
Book 1, Page 62) and the Southwest comer of an alley (of 20 foot width) running in an East-West direction;
thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East and along the East right of way line of McKinley Street and parallel
with the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 20.0 feet to the Southwest corner of Lot
1, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock (recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 62) and the Point of
Beginning; thence continue North 00 degrees 29 minutes East and along the West line of said Lot 1 and parallel
with the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 140.0 feet to the Northwest corner of
said Lot 1 and a point on the South right of way line of "C" street (of varying width); thence South 88 degrees
50 minutes 28 seconds East and along the North line of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4, Henry Meirose Addition to the City
of Little Rock and the South right of way line of "C" Street 196.0 feet to the common North corner of Lots 4
and 5, Henry Meirose Addition; thence South 00 degrees 29 minutes West and along the common line of Lots
4 and 5, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock, for 140.0 feet to the common South corner of said
Lots 4 and 5 and a point on the North line of the previously mentioned East—West alley; thence North 88
degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds West and along the South line of Lots 4, 3, 2 and 1, Henry. Meirose Addition to
the City of Little Rock and the North line of previously mentioned East—West alley for 196.0 feet to the Point
of Beginning containing 0.6299 acres, more or less, now platted as Tract C of Park Plaza Addition, Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas as recorded in Plat Record C-519, records of Pulaski County, Arkansas.
--continued—
Exhibit "A" ---continued
Tract 4: (Developer Tract—Fee simple)
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 1 North, Range 13 West, which
included `B" Street and Arthur Street, closed by City of Little Rock Ordinance No. 11,439 and No. 11,061, and
parts of Lots 14, 15 and 16, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock, all being in Pulaski County,
Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: From the Southeast comer of the said Northeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter, run thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the South line of the
said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the centerline of West Markham Street (of 60 foot width)
for 651.67 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 30.0 feet to the North right of way line
of West Markham Street and the Point of Beginning, said point being the Southeast corner of the Dillard
Department Stores, Inc., tract; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 194.81 feet; thence
North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for 160.36 feet to a point which is in line with the East wall of a
two story brick building occupied by Dillard Department Stores, Inc.; thence North 01 degrees 24 minutes 36
seconds East and along the East wall and East wall projected North for 594.02 feet to the North line of an
East—West alley and a point on the South line of Lot 11, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock;
thence South 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds East and along the South line of Lots 11, 12 and 13, Henry
Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock and the North line of the East-West alley for 114.11 feet to the
Southeast corner of said Lot 13; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East and along the East line of said Lot 13
and the West right of way line of Arthur Street for 26.12 feet to a point; thence South 89 degrees 03 minutes 32
seconds East for 637.63 feet to the West right of way line of University Avenue (of 80 foot width) and 40.0 feet
West: of the East line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South and along the West right
of way line of University Avenue and parallel with the East line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast
Quarter for 55.00 feet; thence North 89 degrees 03 minutes 32 seconds West for 200.00 feet; thence South 01
degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West for 200.00 feet; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for
59.44 feet; thence South 01 degrees 26 minutes 04 seconds West for 368.75 feet; thence North 88 degrees 38
minutes 23 seconds West for 69.86 feet; thence South 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West for 150.00 feet;
thence South 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East for 143.81 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37
seconds East for 129.01 feet; thence South 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East for 200.00 feet to the West
right of way line of University Avenue and a point 40.0 feet West of the East line of the Northeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter; thence South and along the West right of way line of University Avenue and parallel
with the East line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 122.36 feet to the P.C. of a curve to the
right whose radius is 29.36 feet and whose delta angle is 91 degrees 03 minutes 53 seconds; thence along the
Arc of said curve for 46.66 feet (Chord bearing and distance of South 45 degrees 39 minutes 59 seconds West
41.91 feet) to the P.T. of said curve and a point on the North right of way line of West Markham Street (at this
point the distance from the centerline of West Markham Street and from the South line of the Northeast Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter is 51.0 feet; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the North
right of way Line of West Markham Street and parallel with the South line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter for 160.00 feet to the P.C. of a curve to the left whose radius is 101.00 feet and delta angle of
37 degrees 25 minutes 51 seconds; thence along the arc of said curve and North right of way line of West
Markham Street for 65.98 feet (chord bearing and distance of South 72 degrees 26 minutes 51 seconds West
64.82 feet) the P.T. of said curve and a point 30.0 feet North of the South line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the North right of way line
—continued—
Exhibit "A" --continued
of West Markham Street and parallel with the South line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for
359.15 feet to the Point of Beginning, less and except part of the previously mentioned East-West alley and a
part of Arthur Street more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of Lot 13,
Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East and along the East
line of said Lot 13 and the West right of way line of Arthur Street for 26.12 feet; thence South 89 degrees 03
minutes 32 seconds East for 15.33 feet (deed) 17.67 feet (measured); thence South 00 degrees 36 minutes 17
seconds West for 46.18 feet; thence North 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds West for 128.55 feet; thence North
01 degrees 24 minutes 34 seconds East for 20.0 feet to the North line of the East-West alley; thence South 88
degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds East for 114.11 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 9.5841 acres including
the alley and Street and 9.5154 acres excluding the alley and Street, now platted as Tract E of Park Plaza
Addition, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, as recorded in Plat record C-519, records of Pulaski County,
Arkansas.
�9
V
J
J
Doc# 20000-5-5536
EXHIBIT A-1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION — EASEMENT PARCELS
Park Plaza Mall, Little Rock, Arkansas
Those certain easements, rights and privileges of use for pedestrian and vehicular ingress, egress, parking, and
other purposes as set forth in, and created under and toy virtue of that certain Construction, Operation and
Reciprocal Easement Agreement dated December 15, 1986, by and among Construction Developers,
Incorporated; Dillard Department Stores, Inc.; and Herring -Marathon Masters Partnership B; filed in the official
land records of Pulaski County, Arkansas, on December 31, 1986, as Instrument 86-82744, as amended,
modified and supplemented by that certain First Amendment to Construction, Operation and Reciprocal
Easement Agreement effective December 31, 1986, by and among Construction Developers, Incorporated;
Dillard Department Stores, Inc.; and Herring -Marathon Masters Partnership B, filed in the official land records
of Pulaski County, Arkansas on July 27, 1988 as Instrument No. 88-39542, which easements, rights and
privileges benefit the land described in Exhibit A hereto, and burden the following described land:
[See legal description attached hereto and made
a part hereof, consisting of 3 pages]
t -)
W
Tract 5 (Easement):
TOGETHER WITH rights of ingress and egress as set forth in that certain Construction, Operation, and
Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded as Instrument No. 86-82744 and amended by First Amendment to
Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded as Instrument No. 88-39542 over and
across the following described lands:
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 1 North, Range 13 West, which
includes a portion of `B" Street closed by City of Little Rock, Ordinance No. 11,439 and Lots 7 through 13 and
Lots 14 through 26, inclusive, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock, all being in Pulaski County,
Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: From the Southeast corner of the said Northeast Quarter of
the Northeast Quarter; run thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the South line of the
said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the centerline of West Markham Street (of 60 foot width)
for 651.67 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 30.0 feet to the North right of way line
of West Markham Street and the Point of Beginning; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and
along the North right of way line of West Markham Street for 264.08 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes
37 seconds East for 42.0 feet; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for 250.64 feet; thence
North 00 degrees 29 minutes East for 168.54 feet; thence North 88 degrees 37 minutes 06 seconds West for
150.11 feet to the East right of way line of McKinley Street (of 30.0 foot width) and a point 15.0 feet East of the
West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East and along
the East right of way line of McKinley Street and parallel with the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the
Northeast Quarter for 556.51 feet to the Northwest corner of Lot 26, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of
Little Rock (as recorded in Plat Book 1. Page 62) and the Southwest corner of an alley (of 20 foot width)
running in an East-West direction; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East and along the East right of wayline
of McKinley Street and parallel with the West line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 20.0
feet to the Southwest corner of Lot 1, Henry Meirose Addition and the Northwest corner of the East-West alley;
thence South 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds East and along the South line of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Henry
Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock and the North line of the East-West alley for 294.00 feet to the
common South corner of Lots 6 and 7, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock; thence North 00
degrees 29 minutes East and along the common line of said Lots 6 and 7 for 140.00 feet to the common North
comer of said Lots 6 and 7 and a point on the South right of way line of "C" Street (varying width right of way);
thence South 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds East and along the North line of Lots 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13,
Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock and the South right of way line of "C" Street for 336.50 feet
to the Northeast corner of said Lot 13 and the West right of way line of Arthur Street; thence South 00 degrees
29 minutes West and along the West right of way line of Arthur Street 140.00 feet to the Southeast corner of
Lot 13, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock, and a point on the East-West alley previously
mentioned; thence North 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds West and along the South line of Lots 13, 12 and
11, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock and along the North line of said East-West alley for
114.11 feet to a point which is in line with the East wall of a two story brick building occupied by Dillard
Department Stores, Inc.; thence South 01 degrees 24 minutes 36 seconds West and along the East wall and East
wall line projected both North and South for 594.02 feet to a point; thence South 88 degrees 38 minutes 23
seconds East for 160.36 feet to a point; thence South 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West for 194.81 feet to
the Point of Beginning; less and except the East-West alley (of 20 foot width) running through Henry Meirose
Addition to the City of Little Rock, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner
—continued—
Exhibit "A-1"—continued
of Lot 26, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock (as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page 62) and the
Southwest corner of an alley (of 20 foot width) running in an East-West direction; thence North 00 degrees 29
minutes East and along the East right of way line of McKinley Street and parallel with the West line of the
Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 20.0 feet to the Northwest corner of the alley and the Southwest
corner of Lot 1, Henry Meirose Addition; thence South 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds East and along the
North line of said East-West alley and the South line of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Henry Meirose
Addition to the City of Little Rock, 516.39 feet; thence South 01 degrees 24 minutes 36 seconds West for 20.00
feet to a point on the North line of Lot 16, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock and a point on the
South line of said East-West alley; thence North 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds West and along the North
line of Lots 16 through 28, inclusive, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock and the South line of
said East-West alley for 516.07 feet to the Point of Beginning, LESS AND EXCEPT Part of Tract D, Park Plaza
Addition in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, as recorded in Plat Book C at Page 519, being
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Tract A, Park Plaza Addition; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes 00
seconds East along the existing East right-of-way line of McKinley Street 183.00 feet; thence 05 degrees 10
minutes 05 seconds East along the proposed East right-of-way line of McKinley Street 184.17 feet; thence
North 88 degrees 40 minutes 09 seconds West 18.14 feet to the point of beginning, containing 10.0577 acres,
including East-West alley and 9.8207 acres, excluding the alley, now platted as Tract B and Part of Tract D of
Park Plaza Addition, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, as recorded in Plat Book C-519, records of Pulaski
County, Arkansas.
Tract 6 (Easement):
TOGETHER WITH rights of ingress and egress as set forth in that certain Construction, Operation, and
Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded as Instrument No. 86-82744 and amended by First Amendment to
Construction, Operation and Reciprocal Easement Agreement recorded as Instrument No. 88-39542, over and
across the following described lands:
A part of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, Section 1, Township 1 North, Range 13 West, Pulaski
County, Arkansas more particularly described as follows: From the Southeast corner of the said Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, run thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West and along the South
line of the said Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and the centerline of West Markham Street (of 60
feet width) for 651.67 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 30.0 feet to the North right
of way line of West Markham Street; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 194.81 feet;
thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for 160.36 feet to a point which is in line with the East
wall of a two story brick building occupied by Dillard Department Stores, Inc.; thence North 01 degrees 24
minutes 36 seconds East and along the East wall projected North for 594.02 feet to the North line of an East-
West alley and a point on the South line of Lot 11, Henry Meirose Addition to the City of Little Rock; thence
South 88 degrees 50 minutes 28 seconds East and along the South line of Lots 11, 12 and 13, Henry Meirose
Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, and the North line of the East-West alley for
—continued—
Exhibit "A -1" --continued
114.11 feet to the Southeast corner of said Lot 13; thence North 00 degrees 29 minutes East and along the East
line of said Lot 13 and the West right of way line of Arthur Street for 26.12 feet to a point; thence South 89
degrees 03 minutes 32 seconds East for 637.63 feet to the West right of way line of University Avenue (of 80
foot width) and 40.0 feet West of the East line of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence South
and along the West right of way line of University Avenue and parallel with the. East line of the Northeast
Quarter of the Northeast Quarter for 55.00 to the Point of Beginning; thence North 89 degrees 03 minutes 32
seconds West for 200.00 feet; thence South 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West for 200.00 feet; thence
North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for 59.44 feet; thence South 01 degrees 26 minutes 04 seconds
West for 368.75 feet; thence North 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds West for 69.86 feet; thence South 01
degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds West for 150.00 feet; thence South 88 degrees 38 minutes 23 seconds East for
143.81 feet; thence North 01 degrees 21 minutes 37 seconds East for 129.01 feet; thence South 88 degrees 38
minutes 23 seconds East for 200.00 feet to the West right of way line of University Avenue; thence North and
along the West right of way line of University Avenue and parallel with the East line of the Northeast Quarter
of the Northeast Quarter for 591.37 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 3.7999 acres, more or less, now
platted as Tract F of Park Plaza Addition, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, as recorded in Plat Record C-
519, records of Pulaski County, Arkansas.
SUAMIT MALL ANALYSIS
Conducted for
The City of Little Rock
by
METROPLAN
December, 2000
2
Summit Mall Analysis
INTRODUCTION
On October 18, 2000, Little Rock City Director Paul Kelly, a member of the
.Metroplan Board of Directors, asked Metroplan to assist the City Board in
their consideration of the Summit Mall development proposal: He requested
recommendations within sig weeks, although that timeframe has since been
extended. Metroplan has the capability to conduct the requested traffic
analysis and has done so in cooperation with the City's Public Works staff.
The results of that analysis are included in this report.
Metroplan does not have the capacity to conduct a full economic impact
analysis of the proposal. Some preliminary conclusions were developed
based on discussions with people knowledgeable in this area.
Those conclusions are presented herein along with a list of national
consultants whose firms specialize in this type of analysis. In discussing
such a study with consultants, it is not uncommon for the jurisdiction to
require the developer to pay for the economic impact analysis with the
consultant hired by the jurisdiction.
As Director Kelly recognized, the time period for this analysis is very short.
This report is consequently less complete than it would have been given more
time. It is not, for example, fully footnoted and annotated, nor does it contain
the detail of our technical analysis. This information is available at the
Metroplan offices for those so inclined.
This analysis is organized in three parts.
PART 1. Traffic Analysis
PART 2. Economic Analysis
PART 3. Conclusions
The Metroplan staff extends special thanks to Bob Turner, Director of the
Little Rock Public Works Department and his staff and to Jim Lawson and
his staff at the Little Rock Planning and Development Department. Their
help has been invaluable in the preparation of this analysis.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
3
PART 1. TRAFFIC EVIPACTS
A. BACKGROUND
Differences in City and Metroplan Models
In working on a joint analysis with the Little Rock Public Works Department,
both staffs have recognized that the SimTraffic model the City uses and the
TranPlan model that Metroplan uses have different and complementary
strengths. The SimTraffic model is most effective for analyzing the
immediate impact on corridors and intersections on the local street and
arterial network. The Tranplan model is more effective in regional analysis,
future impact analysis, and at modeling the interstate freeway network.
Previous Area Studies
Metroplan has conducted three previous studies that deal with traffic
congestion in this area of west Little Rock. The first was the 1992 Suburban
Mobility Study. That study concluded that west Little Rock would face
serious congestion problems in the near future unless immediate steps were
taken to add roadway capacity, improve intersections, coordinate traffic
signals and develop a stronger link between land use planning decisions and
critically short roadway capacity. An important rezoning had just occurred at
Chenal and Bowman. The study warned that if that pattern of commercial
strip rezoning continued, Chenal Parkway would become severely congested,
and its role as a major throughway permanently compromised.
The second was the Kanis Road Study for the Kanis Road Task Force in
1998. The Kanis Road analysis concluded that Kanis Road would not serve
as a major relief for congestion on Chenal Parkway even if Kanis were
widened west of Shackleford Road. • This is partly due to the fact that Kanis
does not connect directly to the Interstate system nor does Kanis/12th go all
the way through to downtown. The analysis also reflected back on an earlier
consultant study of Chenal Parkway to conclude that the City's current or
reasonably attainable infrastructure in this area could not support the
amount of development planned for the corridor.
The third study was the I-630 Corridor Study completed in 1999. That study
looked at I-630/Chenal Parkway from the Chenal/Markham intersection east
to I-30. The pertinent findings from the I-630 Study (using 1998 data) are:
(a) I-630/Chenal corridor was then failing from Autumn through the
interchange and approaching failure east to Chester.
(b)1-630 and I-430 interchange was then approaching failure for several
directional movements.
(c) Shackleford Rd. between West Markham and Kanis was failing as was
the Shackleford/Financial intersection.
(d) by 2025, Chenal/I-630 will fail from Parkway Place to Chester.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
4
At this,time, there are no plans in'the long-range transportation plan to add
capacity to this corridor.
Measures of Congestion
The adopted Central Arkansas Regional Transportation Study (CARTS)
Level of Service (LOS) thresholds were used in conducting this analysis.
CARTS LOS standards are intentionally conservative (lower thresholds)
-. - because they are intended for planning purposes. Maximum carrying
capacity of roadways is typically calculated based on peak hour flows. The
maximum Average Daily Trips (ADT) a roadway can carry varies based on
conditions at specific locales.
CARTS LOS Definitions
Traffic levels of service range from "A" through "F". This analysis focuses on
LOS E as a roadway nears its capacity and LOS F as a roadway begins to fail.
LOS E — is unstable flow. This level represents operating conditions at or
near capacity. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic flow is extremely
difficult. Small increase in traffic can cause breakdown.
LOS F — is the lowest quality of traffic service or failure of the system.
CARTS Level of Service Thresholds
F- 2 -Lane
4 -Lane
6 -Lane
Arterial
Arterial
Freeway
CARTS LOS E >10,660
>21,320
>76,670
CARTS LOS F >12,540
>25,080
>90,200
Costs of Congestion
A great deal is written in the professional literature regarding the costs of
congestion. Both direct and indirect costs can be precisely calculated.
However, that is quite a laborious task, and has not been attempted for this
analysis. At the same time, the City should be aware of the economic costs of
congestion that are typically borne by citizens and businesses:
• lost productive time stuck in traffic,
• increased fuel consumption,
• increased air pollution due to incomplete fuel combustion at lower
speeds,
• increased accident rates, and
• the lost opportunity costs as potential businesses, homeowners and
customers avoid congested areas.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
5
B. ANALYSIS
Development Scenarios Modeled
The Metroplan model is set up for the year 2025, the study year in the
regional long-range transportation plan. In the model, future population and
retail and non -retail employment growth are allocated to 662 traffic analysis
zones in the region. For this analysis, the allocations were adjusted based on
several different timeframes and development assumptions.
The Summit Mall will be a major magnet for other retail activity. The most
likely areas for additional development will be south of the Summit property
all the way to Col. Glenn Rd. and at the Col. Glenn interchange. The
Aldersgate Camp property would also be a prime commercial site, if at some
time in the future, the owner wishes to sell the property. While an
alternative including the Aldersgate property was not modeled, the City
might find it advisable to acquire a permanent open space easement from the
owners of that property if the City is relying on this to remain open space.
Six different development scenarios were modeled:
(1) Existing Conditions
(2) 2005 without the Summit Mall but with non -retail development at the
Summit site.
(3) 2005 with the Summit Mall
(4) 2025 without the Summit Mall but with projected growth in the area
and with non -retail development at the Summit site.
(5) 2025 with the Summit Mall and future growth.
(6) 2025 with the Summit Mall and a modest amount of retail
development south to and including the Col. Glenn interchange
The scenarios are mapped on the following pages with explanatory comments
on the facing page. Conclusions regarding the analysis, as well as other
transportation related issues follow the maps.
Study Area
The study area for this analysis is bounded by West Markham Street on the
north, Bowman Road on the west, Col. Glenn Road on the south and John
Barrow Road on the east.
Interstate Focus
This analysis is focused on the interstate highway system. Levels of service
and traffic volumes are shown for interstate highway segments and Chenal
Parkway. Levels of service are shown for other arterials in the study area as
an indicator of congestion problems. This analysis defers to the Public Works
Department for detailed analysis of those roadways for reasons mentioned
earlier.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
0
SCENARIO I—' EXISTING CONDITIONS
Scenario based on the most recent traffic counts in the study area.
Comments
Please note that the ChenaU1-630 corridor is at LOS F across the study area.
West Markham and Shackleford Road from Markham to Financial Parkway
are at LOS E. Two lane portions of Bowman and Danis are also at LOS E.
Study Area
The study area for this analysis is bounded by West Markham Street on the north, Bowman
Road on the west, Col. Glenn Road on the south and John Barrow Road on the east.
Interstate Focus
This analysis is focused on the interstate highway system, Levels of service and traffic
volumes are shown for interstate highway segments and Chenal Parkway. Levels of service
are shown for other arterials in the study area as a� indicator of congestion problems. This
analysis defers to the Public Works Department for detailed analysis of those roadways for
reasons mentioned earlier.
Summit Mall Analysis
December 2000
EXISTING
7
SCENARIO 2 -- 2005 WITHOUT S"CTAMT MALL
The model run for 2005 with non -retail development at the Summit
site. Non -retail development consists of residential, office or mixed use for
the purposes of the Tranplan model.
Comments
By 2005, I-430 has degraded to LOS E through the study area. The
arterials at LOS E in 2000 have degraded to LOS F by 2005. This is all
without the Summit Mall development.
Study Area
The study area for this analysis is bounded by West Markham Street on the north, Bowman
Road on the west, Col. Glenn Road on the south and John Barrow Road on the east.
Interstate Focus
This analysis is focused on the interstate highway system. Levels of service and traffic
volumes are shown for interstate highway segments and Chenal Parkway. Levels of service
are shown for other arterials in the study area as an indicator of congestion problems. This
analysis defers to the Public Works Department for detailed analysis of those roadways for
reasons mentioned earlier.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
2005 WITHOUT SUNINIIrr MALL
SCENARIO 3— 2005
WITH SiTNIlI'IIT MALL
The model run for 2005 with the Summit Mall completed, but no other
retail development south of the Summit site.
Comments
Traffic attracted to the Summit Mall further degrades I-430 from the I-
630 interchange to the Shackleford Road interchange to LOS F. In addition
to the arterials previously at LOS F, Shackleford Road from the I-430
interchange along the Sumgait site functions at LOS F.
Col. Glenn degrades to LOS E through the interchange with I-430.
Study Area
The study area for this analysis is bounded by West Markham Street on the north, Bowman
Road on the west, Col. Glenn Road on the south and John Barrow Road on the east.
Interstate Focus
This analysis is focused on the interstate highway system. Levels of service and traffic
volumes are shown for interstate highway segments and Chenal Parkway. Levels of service
are shown for other arterials in the study area as an indicator of congestion problems. This
analysis defers to the Public Works Department for detailed analysis of those roadways for
reasons mentioned earlier.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
2005 WITH SUMMIT MALL
0
SCENARIO 4 -- 2025 WITHOUT SUMMIT MALL
The model run for 2025 coincides with the plan year for METRO 2025, the
regional long-range transportation plan. Future job and population growth
for the region are included in this run, and non- retail uses are built on the
Summit site instead of the Mall.
Comments
Scenario 4 gives us the baseline for the natural growth already
anticipated by the City's land use and master street plans. In this scenario,
it is assumed that both Kanis west of Shackleford and Bowman Road
between Chenal and Kanis have been widened to four main lanes as
development has occurred. Note that even with the widening, these two
roadway segments perform at LOS E because traffic begins to divert from
Chenal Parkway. By this time, Col. Glenn Road has degraded to LOS F
(assuming a continued 2 lane cross-section).
It is projected that the natural increase in travel demand will push I--430 to
LOS F by this time. Compare this to Scenario 3 where the construction of the
Summit Mall pushed 1-430 to LOS F by 2005.
'fest Markham remains at LOS F. Shackleford from Markham to
Financial remains LOS F. Between Financial and Kanis, Shackleford
deteriorates to LOS E and to LOS F between Kanis and I-430.
Assuming no increases in main lane capacity, the Chenal/I-630 corridor
continues at LOS F.
Study Area
The study area for this analysis is bounded by West Markham Street on the north, Bowman
Road on the west, Col. Glenn Road on the south and John Barrow Road on the east.
Interstate Focus
This analysis is focused on the interstate highway system. Levels of service and traffic
volumes are shown for interstate highway segments and Chenal Parkway. Levels of service
are shown for other arterials in the study area as an indicator of congestion problems. This
analysis defers to the Public Works Department for detailed analysis of those roadways for
reasons mentioned earlier.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
2025 WITHOUT SUMMIT MALL
10
SCENARIO 5 -- 2025 WITH SLTM3HT MALL
The model run for 2025 coincides with the plan year for METRO 2025,
the regional long-range transportation plan. Regional job and population
growth are included, but, unlike Scenario 4, this scenario assumes the
Summit Mall is built. It is also assumed that no additional retail uses are
built south of the Summit so that the future effect; of the development itself
might be isolated.
Comments
The only appreciable difference in 2025 with or without the Mall is
that Shackleford degrades to LOS F for the entirety of its length to the
Summit site.
This indicates that the impact of the Summit Mall on the critical
traffic capacity in this area will come almost immediately after its
completion.
In this case, congestion can worsen, even under an LOS F situation,
but only to a point before economic activity diverts to other less congested
areas.
Notwithstanding the intersections which are currently failing at this
time, the traffic generated by the Summit Mall will consume enough of the
existing roadway capacity on I-430 to cause this roadway to operate at LOS F
twenty years before it is projected to do so.
Study Area
The study area for this analysis is bounded by West Markham Street on the north, Bowman
Road on the west, Col. Glenn Road on the south and John Barrow Road on the east.
Interstate Focus
This analysis is focused on the interstate highway system. Levels of service and
traffic volumes are shown for interstate highway segments and Chenal Parkway. Levels of
This analysis defers to the Public Works Department for detailed analservice are shown for other arterials in the study area as an indicator of congestion problems.
ysis
for reasons mentioned earlier. of those roadways
Summit Mall Analysis
December 2000
, 2025 WITH SUMMIT MALL
11
SCENARIO 6 -- 2025 WITH SUIVIlYIIT MALL AND FULL BUILD -OUT
The model run for 2025 that coincides with the plan year for METRO
2025, the regional long-range transportation plan. Regional job and
population growth are included, but, unlike Scenario 4, this scenario assumes
the Summit Mall is built. In addition, a modest amount of retail
development south to and including the Col. Glenn interchange is assumed.
Comments
The only differences in this scenario over Scenario 5 are that
Shackleford Road south of the Summit site degrades to LOS E and Col. Glenn
deteriorates to LOS F through the I-430 interchange.
In this case, as in the previous scenario, congestion can worsen, even
under an LOS F situation, but only to a point before economic activity diverts
to other less congested areas.
Study Area
The study area for this analysis is bounded by West Markham Street on the north, Bowman
Road on the west, Col. Glenn Road on the south and John Barrow Road on the east.
Interstate Focus
This analysis is focused on the interstate highway system. Levels of service and traffic
volumes are shown for interstate highway segments and Chenal Parkway. Levels of service
are shown for other arterials in the study area as an indicator of congestion problems. This
analysis defers to the Public Works Department for detailed analysis of those roadways for
reasons mentioned earlier.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
2025 WITH SUMMIT MALL AND FULL BUILDOUT
12
Impacts on Interstate Highways
Interstate 430 is the western circumferential freeway around the Little Rock -
North Little Rock urban area. Circumferential freeways were originally
designed as a means for inter -state and intra -state through traffic to by-pass
the congested urban core.
Urban areas around the country have seen circumferential freeways as
Opportunities for commercial development. Consequently, they have become
destinations for local traffic. As such, they are often -the most congested
roadways in many metropolitan areas. As a general rule, Metroplan strongly
discourages using by-pass roadways as major commercial ;streets. Such use
reduces regional mobility, increases congestion and increases air pollution.
Other metropolitan areas (for example,, Houston, Dallas -Ft. Worth or
Atlanta) have addressed congestion on their loop roads by building or
proposing a second: and even third ring around the city. It should be noted
that, even if the funds were available, finding a corridor to build another
Interstate loop west of I-430, given the Arkansas River, the topography of the
area and the location of Lake Maumelle, would be extremely difficult. I-430
will be the westernmost Interstate by-pass for the City of Little Rock for a
very long time.
Public Subsidy of $34-51 million in 1-430 Capacity
Several years ago, the Corps of Engineers changed pricing policy for water
sales from Corps lakes. Instead of the price of water being based on the
initial construction price of the reservoir, it was adjusted upward based on
the replacement cost of the lake in todav's dollars. If that same philosophy
were applied to the Summit Mall, it would result in a public subsidy ranging
from $34 million to $51 million in I-430 capacity alone.
That conclusion is arrived at as follows:
■ I-430 was completed in 1975 at a cost of $67 million. Its purpose, as
previously stated, was to by-pass the congestion in the urban core for
interstate and intrastate through traffic.
■ Replacement costs in today's dollars would be approximately $220
million.
• The capacity of I-430 for through movements is dictated by its most
congested segment. The theoretical maximum capacity of I-430 is
approximately 115,000 Average Daily Trips (ADT). As a comparison,
the latest traffic counts show the I-30 bridge operating at 107,000 ADT.
• The Summit Mall development will generate 34,238 trips per day. The
developer's traffic study suggests that 78% or 26,705 trips, will arrive
via I-430. Metroplan's analysis shows a slightly higher percentage 80%
or 27,390 trips arriving via I-430.
Summit Mall Analysis
December 2000
13
If a theoretical capacity of 115,000 is used for I-430, the Summit Mall
would use between 23.2% (using the developer's assumptions) of the
roadway's capacity if one simply divided the trips assumed to be arriving
via I-430 by the theoretical capacity. However, the Tranplan model runs
for 2005 indicate that the Mall would only consume 17% of I-430
capacity. The more conservative Tranplan model reassigned a
percentage of existing trips in the area to the Mall.
■ As with a water pipeline, the capacity of a roadway for through traffic is
limited by its narrowest or most congested segment. Consequently,
based on the above range of assumptions, the Summit Mall would
consume between 17% and 23.2% of the theoretical capacity of I-430.
■ Therefore, a significant amount of the maximum capacity of I-430 will
be allocated to a single development to the exclusion of other future
users, not only along the corridor, but throughout the region. In today's
dollars, that capacity is worth between $37.4 and $51 million.
This is a very real public subsidy. These figures do not count the loss of
capacity or increased congestion on I-630. Since I-630 is already near
capacity, a marked increase in congestion on the west -end of the roadway
would be the likely result. Nor does it count the public contribution, as yet
undefined, that the developer wishes applied to reconstruct the Shackleford
Road interchange. It also does not include any public subsidies that the
community might bear in order to redevelop other retail areas impacted
because of the construction of the Summit Mall (assuming a detailed market
analysis shows the market incapable of absorbing the Summit without
negative consequences to others).
Impacts on Shackleford Road and Other Local Streets
Metroplan concurs with the analysis of the Little Rock Public Works
Department. The Summit Mall development will add congestion to the
already failing Shackleford Road and all of its intersections north of its
interchange at I-430, most of which are currently failing or in danger of
failing.
Our analysis also indicates that the development will add congestion to the
two-lane segments of Kanis Road and Bowman Road until such times as
those roads are widened to four lanes.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
14
Who Will Provide Roadway Improvements
The developers have proposed significant improvements to the transportation
system in the immediate vicinity of the Summit property. Those
improvements include:
■ Widening Shackleford Road to four lanes with left; turn bays bordering
the site, including signalization
• Reconstructing the Shackleford Road Interchange
• Geometric improvements at 36' and Shackleford and signalization
■ Improvements and signalization at Col. Glenn and Shackleford
The City's position is that no City funds will be used on these infrastructure
improvements. The developers are planning to pay all of the improvements
listed above except the interchange reconstruction. They hope to attract
federal transportation dollars to assist in funding of the Shackleford
interchange reconstruction. The developers estimate the cost of all of the
above listed improvements at $9.5 million. Metroplan has made no
independent effort to estimate these costs.
No provision is made to address arterial improvements needed to relieve
congestion upstream on Shackleford (I-430 interchange to West Markham)
nor to pay any prorated share for capacity improvements on Bowman or
Kanis. It should be noted that it has not been the City's policy to require that
type of off-site infrastructure contribution.
Access by Transit
The Central Arkansas Transit Authority has commented that the Summit
Mall, as designed, will not be readily accessible to transit. Additional buses
and bus routes will be required to service the Summit Mall. The additional
costs for this service would have to be borne by the City of Little Rock
General Fund or by the elimination of existing service elsewhere in the City.
In addition, LATA believes that the proposed transit stop would be extremely
inconvenient for transit riders because the Mall building is set significantly
back from the street where the designated stop is located. In addition, it
would be inaccessible to handicapped riders because of a steep ramp from the
street to the Mall.
C. NOT JUST LITTLE ROCK'S DECISION
Federal Funds for Interstate Work
It is the contention of the developer that the improvements to the
Shackleford Road interchange on I-430 are of broad benefit to the general
public, and, therefore, that the costs should be shared between the public and
private sectors. The developers have stated that they will seek federal funds
to pay the bulk of this cost.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
15
The City Board should realize that any federal transportation funds spent in
this metropolitan area must be in conformity with the regional
transportation plan and must be approved by the Metroplan Board of
Directors. Since the congestion generated by a regional mall of this size at
this location would have a substantial impact on regional mobility, that
approval should not be assumed as a foregone conclusion.
Air Quality Implications
As of last summer Central Arkansas was in violation of the 8 -hour ozone
standard and is in jeopardy of being declared a non -attainment area under
the Clean Air Act. The 8 -hour standards are currently under review by the
U.S. Supreme Court. A decision is expected from the Court in the spring of
2001.
If the eight-hour standards are upheld, Central Arkansas can expect to bF:
declared a non -attainment area for ozone by the end of 2001. Under noxi -
attainment status, projects of regional significance must be reviewed for their
contribution to the pollution emissions budget set for mobile sources in the
State Implementation Plan. Because of the amount of traffic a regional mall
would generate and the sensitivity of this location to additional congestion,
the improvements to the Shackleford interchange might not be allowed
regardless of the source of funds (federal, state, local or private).
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
16
PART 2. ECONOMIC IMPACTS
As mentioned in the introduction, Metroplan does not have the staff capacity
to conduct an economic impact analysis. Enough background research has
been done to reach some preliminary conclusions shared below.
There are essentially two tracks of economic inquiry regarding a
new development of this size.
First, can the greater Little Rock market support a new regional mall and
existing retail centers? If not, which existing centers south of the Arkansas
River are most at risk? Second, what is the net public benefit for the Summit
Mall
Negative Impacts Likely
As to the first question, data shows that the target market area is stagnant
or only slowly growing in population. Consequently, there is a high
likelihood that the addition of the Summit Mall will cause serious
repercussions in other retail centers in the City. The community has
generally assumed that the greatest impact will be on the University Avenue
corridor, including Park Plaza, University Mall and Sears. That is a
reasonable assumption. It is also quite possible that there will be a negative
impact in the Chenal Parkway Corridor where the City has some 760 acres
zoned for retail commercial activities.
Retail Trends in the Little Rock Area
The growth in occupied retail space in the Greater Little Rock area has been
slowing in recent years according to annual data compiled by Arkansas
Business. Occupied retail space hit its highest level in 1995, at 8.55 million
square feet. By 1997 it had dropped 5% to 8.12 million square feet. Since
that time, it has crawled up.to 8.4 million square feet, still slightly below the
peak in 1995.
Metroplan cannot vouch that Arkansas Business has surveyed all retail
businesses in "Greater Little Rock". The important thing to note is the flat
trend line in the retail centers that they have surveyed, indicating a balance
in supply and demand.
Population Stagnant in Primary Market Area
Pulaski County is clearly a regional market center, not only for the four -
county Little Rock/North Little Rock metropolitan area, but for a twenty-
three (23) county Basic Trading Area containing nearly 900,000 people.
Regional -serving retail is split north and south. Customers north of the
Arkansas River tend to shop in the McCain Mall retail area. Customers
south of the River tend to shop in the University and Chenal Parkway
corridors.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
17
Based on Simon Properties market analysis from the Little Rock Planning
Department files, the primary market area for the Summit Mall is within a
five -mile radius of the site, virtually all within Little Rock's city limits. The
population in the primary market area identified by the developer is expected
to remain stagnant at best, although it is clearly shifting from east to west.
Pulaski County south of the Arkansas River is expected to have actually lost
population in the past decade, while the four county metropolitan area as a
whole is projected to have grown by 9.3% in that period.
In addition, because of the significant population shift out of Pulaski County
over the past two decades, retail opportunities in those out counties are
increasing rapidly.
Net Benefit Anal sis
If a market analysis indicates that the construction of the Summit Mall will
have an adverse impact on existing retail centers in the City, then a full
economic impact analysis is warranted. Although it is clear that the Summit
development will generate gross benefits to the public coffers, it is important
to determine the net of new sales against lost sales, of increased property
values against decreased property values, etc.
The analysis could be more detailed, asking such questions as: What are the
direct and indirect costs of the abandonment of the University Avenue as a
commercial corridor, should that happen? What additional firm and police
resources (capital and personnel) will be needed to reasonably protect the
Summit Mall property and the citizens who use it? What are those costs?
How will they be paid for?
Broader policy issues dealing with the impact on the City of moving most
substantial retail outlets west to I-430 and beyond might also be considered.
Metroplan has identified several national firms that do this type of analysis
on major retail developments — for both private and public clients. Half a
dozen are listed below. This is not an exclusive list, but the firms on the list
are fully qualified to perform such an analysis. Based on conversations with
these firms and after reviewing samples of such analyses done for other
jurisdictions, it is estimated that such a study would cost between $75,000
and $125,000 and take 3-4 months to complete.
In some regions of the country this type of analysis is required as a normal
course of business, in some cases by state law. In most cases, the developer is
typically required to fund such a study.
The consulting firms are listed on the following page.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
ECONOYVIIC IMPACT ANALYSIS CONSULTING FIRMS
PricewaterhouseCoopers
c/o Terry Cornella
50 Hurt Plaza, Suite 1700
Atlanta, GA 30303
404-658-8665
Economic Research Associates
(ERA)
c/o Bill Anderson, Vice President
9645 1h Avenue, Suite 214
San Diego, CA 92101
619-544-1402
The Sedway Group
c/o Jack Sylvan
19th Floor
353 Sacremento St.
San Francisco, CA
415-781-8900
RKG Associates
c/o Jim Hicks
277 Mast Road
Durham, New Hampshire 03824
603-868-5513
Hammer Siler George
Associates/Jack Gould
c/o Jack Gould
1140 Connecticut Avenue,
Suite 777
Washington, D.C. 20036
202-659-6410
Development Strategies
c/o Robert Lewis
94111 10 South Broadway, Suite 1640
St. Louis MO 63102-1743
314-421-2800
Summit Mall Analysis
December 2000
19
PART 3. CONCLUSIONS
The original Summit Mall PCD was granted 13 years ago. The latest renewal
expired in September, 2000. Both the Little Rock Planning staff and the
Planning Commission, based on their comments to the Little Rock Board
Directors, declined to conduct a comprehensive review of the development
based on the Board's decision thirteen years ago that this site was
appropriate for a regional mall. Within that context, both the Planning and
Public Works Departments have conducted their discussions with the
developer on how to make the proposal work best. Again, within that
context, the developer has incorporated several changes to the original
development plan suggested by city staff.
However, Metroplan did not undertake its analysis assuming that a regional
mall was a foregone conclusion. The world has changed markedly in the last
thirteen years. Thirteen years ago, there was no traffic congestion in west
Little Rock. Thirteen years ago, Chenal Parkway was not a regional retail
center. Thirteen years ago, the region was not in violation of the federal
Clean Air Act regulations. City planning and transportation professionals
have had an additional thirteen years to review the negative consequences of
commercializing circumferential freeways in other metropolitan areas.
The retail market nationally has changed as well. As an example, a recent
issue of the newsletter of the Surface Transportation Policy Project included
this observation:
Each year two financial research firms, Pricewaterhouse Coopers
and Lend Lease Real Estate Investments, Inc., assess the
commercial real estate market. Increasingly, they are ... warning
investors away from suburban office parks and malls, and towards
24-hour districts with a more urban character. The annual report,
Emerging Trends in Real Estate 2000, sends this message in
unmistakable language:
Endless traffic lights, intersections, and turning lanes
highlight [suburbanites'] frustration as they battle a legacy
of poorly conceived infrastructure, abysmal regional
planning, and `anything goes' development.
Emerging Trends interviewees repeatedly mention infill
development... projects as favored investments. "We're going
back to the future," said an investing management executive.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
20
"The whole issue of...regenerating the city and the idea of
place is finally being accepted by the investor and business
community. Today's poorly conceived suburbs will, be the
ghettos of the future."
You can still wager on suburban "growth path
investing"... but it's a risky play. The boomers' prime child
bearing years are over, and Generation X decidedly prefers
the more exciting opportunities offered by big cities ... The
golden era is over. What remains is a pockmarked suburban
landscape, with attractive better -planned communities
interspersed among areas destined for eventual obsolescence.
Many of these places weren't built to last.
Suburban degeneration is increasing, while 24-hour cities
and prime infill locations gain favor...
These comments are a bit harsh in some areas, but are indicative of the
profound changes that have taken place in the national retail market in
the past thirteen years.
Recommendations
Metroplan is the organization charged with protecting and improving the
mobility of the metropolitan area, and, as such, recommends against
putting a large generator of local traffic on a circumferential freeway. The
Summit Mall alone will use up a significant portion of the future roadway
capacity on I-430 and contribute to congestion on other roadways at or
very near capacity at present.
However, other bodies with broader mandates may see an overriding
public interest in the development, for example, in the economic benefits
of the proposal. Unfortunately, at this time, there is no information in the
public record that there is a net public benefit to the Summit Mall.
In order to establish a net public benefit; the Summit Mall proposal should be
returned to the Planning Commission to be studied de novo. To assist the
Commission in its deliberations, the developer should be required to fund a
full economic impact analysis with a consulting firm jointly selected but
retained by the City.
Summit Mall Analysis December 2000
MEMORANDUM
March 2, 2001
TO: Little Rock Board of Directors
Planning Director Jim Lawson
FROM: Anne N. Zahner
Executive Vice President
First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments
RE: Impact of Summit Mall on Park Plaza Mall
Little Rock. Arkansas
Enclosed is a report prepared by First Union's consultant, Kyle Cascioli of Barrett Associates,
Inc., relative to eight regional malls developed in recent years by Simon Property Group that displaced
older malls in their respective retail markets.
This report does not paint a pretty picture for displaced malls such as University Mall and Park
Plaza Mall:
• Rehabilitation periods of 10 years of more.
■ Occupancy levels of 0-50%.
• Rents at one-third of present levels.
• Lesser quality tenancies.
• Poor tenant mix.
• Lax maintenance of physical plant.
■ Blight and decay in surrounding neighborhoods.
We urge you to call government officials, economic development officers and business people in
the communities mentioned in the enclosed report to verify these findings for yourself.
Be aware that the economic projections forwarded to you by Cy Carney with his memorandum
of February 12, 2001 are absolutely unrealistic because they: (a) ignore the historical reality presented by
the enclosed case studies, (b) assume Dillard and all specialty store tenants continue to occupy Park
Plaza Mall, which will not be the case, and as a result of (a) and (b), (c) ignore the fact that Park Plaza
will, at best, be worth substantially less than it is today (i.e., rents drop to one-third of current levels,
occupancy drops to 50% or less, income drops to 15% of present levels, and the property cannot cover its
mortgage payment).
Carney's memorandum also says "Even though the Oak Court Mall lost 14% of sales the first
year Wolfchase was open, it only lost 1.5% of sales the second year." However, the chart attached to
said memorandum (copy attached) shows a declining sales trend of $26.6 Million (or 15.096%) over 2
years. In addition to this fuzzy math, the situations are not comparable. Oak Court Mall still has its
anchor tenants and specialty stores, whereas Park Plaza will not. Consequently, Carney's projections
should be revised using a substantially higher "decline factor", rather than 14%.
We urge you to protect your community from the collateral damage that invariably results
from new regional mall development by linkin new mall development to comprehensive
repositioning, redevelopment and revitalization strategies for impacted properties such as
University Mall and Park Plaza Mall and surrounding neighborhoods. This is a valid municipal
planning objective, and is essential to avoid the blight and decay that will ensue along University
Avenue following the development of Summit Mall. The City of Little Rock has a responsibility to
its citizens and businesses who have invested in the community to protect that existing investment
in neighborhoods and infrastructure, and to see that new development proceeds legally, logically,
and in accordance with a corer elrensive Ian, to assure that the least amount of disruption to
existing neighborhoods and businesses will occur.
As you weigh the costs and benefits of Summit Mall, please consider the cost to the
community of the demise of Park Plaza Mall.
Please do not hesitate to call me at (212) 905-1114 if you have any questions on this matter. I
look forward to seeing you on Tuesday. Thank you.
569834.1
-2-
Situation #1 - Memphis, TN
Existin Mall
Oak Court Mall
Total GLA - 721,890
Anchors - Dillard's, Goldsmith's
New Mall Opens - 1997
Distance between malls — 7 miles
New Mali
Wolfchase Galleria v—`
Total GLA — 1,o00,Q00
Anchors — Dillard's, Goldsmith's, JC Penney, Sears
Oak Court Sales Trend
(sales in millions)
1996 1997
`9Chg
1998 '97-98
Dillard's $31.3 $ 27.1 f
%hg
-13.4%
% Ch
$25.6 -5.5°%
Goldsmith's $94.0 $82.4
Mall Shops
-12,3°/a
$$2.5
9 X42.3
----::>I Total Mall $776.2 $151.8
-13,9%
$149,6 -1.5% -�
Commentary
i
Dillard's and Goldsmith's both opened stares at the
new mall.
The Oak Court
Mall was down 14% In the first year and 1.5% in the
second year. In 1999 (not
showy on the table) sales started to Increase
again.
OZ'd L660 -8L£ -109-t sash-Ad..la-Zu3 131 d0Z:E0 LO-eZ-qa_
A ' J
EXHIBIT I
SUMMIT SUMMIT
PARK PLAZA UNIVI
SPIN-OFF
TOTAL SQUARE FEET
1_,120,000 Sq. Ft_ 174,240 Sq. Ft.
543,783 Sq. Ft. 565,521
1,294,240
1,109,304
APPRAISED VALUE (S)
$150,000,000 $23,330,736
$72,426,700 $23,311
$173,330,736
$95,737,700
PROPERTY TAXES
$2,040,000 $317,298
$985,003 $317,02
$2,357,298
$1,302,032
ANNUAL SALES
$270,900,000 $42,144,300
$160,000,000 $56,000
$313,044,3006
$216,000,000
ANTNUAL SALES TAX TO LITTLE ROCK
$2,782,143 $432,821
$1,643,200 $575,12
$3,214,964
$2,218,320
1 EMPLOYEE/450 SQUARE FEET
2,488 387
1,208 1,256
2,875
21464
EXHIBIT II
PROPOSH MM KU t, MFF
EXISTING PARK PLAZA EXISTING UNIVERS11T
ANNUAL. SALES TAX TO LITTLE ROCK
$3,214,964
$1,643,200
$575,120
14% DECLINE OF PARK PLAZA/UNIVERSITY
$1,643,200
$575,120
4230,04
-280,516
$1,413,152
$494,604
$35214,964
$1,907,756
20% DECLINE OF PARK PLAZA/ UNIVERSITY
$1,643,200
$575,120
-$328-640
?
4115,024
$1,314,560
$460,096
$3,214,964
$1,774,656
50% DECLINE OF PARK PLAZA/UNIVERSITY
$1,643,200
$575,120
-$821.60Q
-$2�7,560
$821,600
$287,560
$3,214,964
$1,109,160
EXHIBIT III
SUMMIT MALL AND SPIN-OFF SALES TAX TO CITY OF LITTLAE-R-OC
G k -w co.
I-430 IN LITYLE ROCK NORTH LITTLE ROCK BENTON
ANNUAL SALES $313,044,300 $313,044,300
X,01027(.005 City +.00527 County) X-00527 (County)
$3,214,964 $1,649,743
$313,044,300
XO
$0
SUMMIT MALL AND SPIN-OFF PROPERTY TAX TO CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
APPRAISED VALUE
PROPERTY TAX
PROPERTY TAX TO LITTLE ROCK
I-430 IN LITTLE ROCK
$173,330,736
X .20 (Assessed)
$34,666,147
X .068 LUIjgo
$2,357,298
$2,357,298
NORTH LITTLE ROCK
$173,330,736
X .20 (Assessed)
$34,666,147
X .0584 (Millage)
$2,024,052
$0
BENTON
$173,330,736
X .20 (Assessed)
$34,666,147
X .0448 (Millage)
$1,553,043
$0
Situation #1 - Memphis, TN
Exis_ tig,q Mail
Oak Court Mall
Total GLA - 721,890
Anchors - Dillard's, Goldsmith's
New Mall Opens - 1997
istance between malls — 7 miles
New Mall
Wolfchase Galleria
Total GLA — 1,000,000
Anchors — Dillard's, Goldsmith's, JC Penney, Sears
Oak Court Sales Trend
Commentary
Dillard's and Goldsmith's both opened stores at the new mall. The Gak Court
Mall was down 14% in the I•Erst year and 1.5% in the second year. In lggg (not
shown on the table) sales started to increase again.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION
TO: MAYOR AND BOARD OF Z,.R
CTORS
FROM: CY CARNEY, CITY MANA
SUBJECT: SUMMIT MALL — ECONOMIC A ALYSIS UPDATE
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2001
At the February 23, 2001 Board of Directors meeting, the Board requested additional economic
impact information relative to the Summit Mall proposal.
Specifically, the request was to calculate the property taxes without factoring spin-off economic
development beyond the boundaries of the 97 acre site. In doing so, it was requested that we use a
total project cost of $100 million and $150 million. Since that time, additional information including
estimated construction cost to Simon Properties ($100,000,000), construction cost of the four
separate department stores ($86,000,000), out parcels on-site ($7,840,000) and lease space finish -out
costs ($21,515,000) have been provided for a total estimated project cost of $215,595,000. We have
used this cost to show comparisons in Exhibit I in addition to the requested $100 million and $150
million.
The Board also requested more data on cost of utilities and services to the City as a result of the
project. The synopsis of these costs is outlined below.
Public Works: Information includes cost for traffic signalization maintenance and energy, street
lighting installation, maintenance and energy, street striping and signage, and street overlay cost for a
total annualized cost of $38,167. (February 26, 2001 memo is attached)
Little_ RQck Municipal Water Works: No additional infrastructure cost to the city will be necessary.
All cost for lines or connections to users will be the responsibility ,of the user. There is adequate
current capacity to serve the site. Little Rock Wmtexvater Utility: No additional infrastructure cost
to the City will be necessary. The site can be served by current systems.
Police Department: The mall will hire on-site security. Current Police resources will be able to
handle any situation. There may be a need to make adjustments in redistricting and reassignment of
existing officers. Fire Department No additional manpower or equipment will be necessary as the
project is equidistant from three(3) stations. The mall will be sprinkled and meet all life safety codes.
Central Arkansas T-unsit Auth rite Bus routes would be extended to the mall. This would have no
continuing costs. It would have some minor start up cost involving the design and printing of new
timetables and system map, bus stop signs, and possibly one or more bus shelters. The net
operating cost increase would be zero, as it would not increase the annual miles of bus travel in the
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
City. The existing buses would have a longer route but would make fewer round trips during the
service day because of the added length.
The closest bus route is Baptist Medical Center, which recently was extended to the Arkansas Heart
Hospital. Extending it further would increase the trip time from downtown to the end of the line
from its current 45 -minute length to almost 60 minutes. Currently, a bus on that route will make 9.5
round trips in a 14 -hour span. An extended route would lower that to 7 round trips per day. That
could result in lower ridership, which could be offsetting gains by new riders to the Summit Mall.
This assumes there will be a suitable turnaround point for the bus eidier on Shackleford in the
parking lot/circulator drive network of the mall. (February 16, 2001 CATA memo is attached)
Reliant: There are no costs to the City as a result of this project. On-site cost for individual uses are
borne by the developers. No existing lines will need to be abandoned or relocated due to the
development. Enter There are no costs to the City as a result of this project. Extensions to
serve the property are the responsibility of the utility and connections are paid for by the owner or
tenant.
The Board asked that staff compute Economic impact if both University and Park Plaza Malls were
shut down and determine what affect that would have on real estate taxes. In discussing this issue
with the County Assessors office, they are unable to provide an answer based on the "shut -down"
assumption. They indicate that the County would continue to bill the respective malls the same
amount as in previous years even though die malls were closed. It would then be incumbent upon
the owners to present the new scenario for review by die Board of Equalization.
Along with this report, die updated property tax exhibit and other two attachments we have
included a copy of the memo and exhibits from the February 12, 2001 public hearing for your
review.
Attachments
Pul-aski C_O(VII)l, (ItUls)
Pulaski General
County Hospital
Road Fund
TOTAL
EXHIBIT I
PROPERTY T.,kZ BRCAKDO\\rN
(.0068 = MILLAGC RATE)
Pulaski County
City of Little Rock
Little Rock School District
TOTAL
.0085 (Millage) (12.5%)
.0131 (Millage) (19.3%)
.0464 (N illageL (68.2°/,,)
.068 (Millage) (100%)
.005
.0033
.0018
.001
.001
.001
.0131
SUMMU MALL ANIN UAL PR PF_RIiTAX AL1..OTMENT
A. $100,000,000 (Value of Mall)
X .20 (Assessed)
$20,000,000
X .068 (Millage)
$1,360,000 (Ta_xes paid)
$1,360,000 (Taxes)
X 12.5% (Counts= %)
$ 170,000 (Tax to County)
B. $150,000,000 (Value of Mall)
X .20 (Assessed)
$30,000,000
X .068 (Millage)
$2,040,000 (Taxes paid)
$2,040,000 (Tates)
X 12.5 (County %)
$ 255,000 (Tax to County)
�7
$1,360,000 (Tates)
X 19.3% (City%)
$ 262,480 (Tax to City)
$2,040,000 (Taxes)
X 19.3% (City%)
$ 393,720 (Tai to City)
Little Uck-Sicbool Digrict
Little Rock Schools
TOTAL
$1,360,000 (Taxes)
X 68.2% (School%)
$ 927,520 (Tax to School)
.0464
.0464
$2,040,000 (Taxes)
X 68.29/6 (School°/a)
$1,391,280 (Tax to School)
Citi* of i..ir[le liC]ck
.005
General Fund
.0006
Bond and Interest
.0029
Library
'.0085
Police Pension
Fire Pension
Capital Improvements
TOTAL
Pulaski County
City of Little Rock
Little Rock School District
TOTAL
.0085 (Millage) (12.5%)
.0131 (Millage) (19.3%)
.0464 (N illageL (68.2°/,,)
.068 (Millage) (100%)
.005
.0033
.0018
.001
.001
.001
.0131
SUMMU MALL ANIN UAL PR PF_RIiTAX AL1..OTMENT
A. $100,000,000 (Value of Mall)
X .20 (Assessed)
$20,000,000
X .068 (Millage)
$1,360,000 (Ta_xes paid)
$1,360,000 (Taxes)
X 12.5% (Counts= %)
$ 170,000 (Tax to County)
B. $150,000,000 (Value of Mall)
X .20 (Assessed)
$30,000,000
X .068 (Millage)
$2,040,000 (Taxes paid)
$2,040,000 (Tates)
X 12.5 (County %)
$ 255,000 (Tax to County)
�7
$1,360,000 (Tates)
X 19.3% (City%)
$ 262,480 (Tax to City)
$2,040,000 (Taxes)
X 19.3% (City%)
$ 393,720 (Tai to City)
Little Uck-Sicbool Digrict
Little Rock Schools
TOTAL
$1,360,000 (Taxes)
X 68.2% (School%)
$ 927,520 (Tax to School)
.0464
.0464
$2,040,000 (Taxes)
X 68.29/6 (School°/a)
$1,391,280 (Tax to School)
C. $100,000,000 (Mall Cost to Simon is Gross Hard and Soft Cost)
$ 86,240,000 (784,000 Sq. Ft. of Department Store a $110/Sq. Ft.)
$ 21,515,000 (331,000 Sq. ht of "Tenant finish out @$65/Sq. Ft.)
7,840.800 (12 acres of out parcels on-site) (20% coverage n $75/Sq. Ft)
$215,595,800 (Total Value)
$215,595,800 (Total Value)
Z .20 (Assessed)
$43,119,160
X .068 (mill -age)
$2,932,102.88 (Taxes paid)
$2,932,102.88 (Tates) $2,932,102.88 (Taxes) $2,932,102.88 (Taxes)
X 12.5°!° (County %) X -191-01a (City%) Z 68.2% (School%)
$366,501.61(Tax to CountS,) $565,878.49 (Tat to City) $1,999,632.78(Tax to School)
City of Little Rock
Department of
Public Works
621 S. Broadway
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
340-4856 Office
340-4857 Fax
U_ Xr,_ 1 ► 1 u_
TO: BOB TURNER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Traffic Enqineerin
FROM: WILLIAM HENRY, TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUMMIT MALL YEARLY IMPACTS OF PW FACILITIES
DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2001
The increase in maintenance and operation of the traffic system due to improvement
required due to development of this site is as follows:
1. Traffic Signalizatio.n: $3,000 per intersection for maintenance and energy costs.
9 new signal will be installed to handle the projected traffic generated by this site.
Based on this assumption, the yearly fee for signal maintenance and operation will be
$27,000 per year.
2. Streetlighting: Installation of approximately 29-250 high pressure sodium light
fixtures @ $10/ea per month for maintenance and energy = $3480/year
3. Striping and Signage: Initial signage costs and re -striping costs amortized based on a
7 -year replacement cycle:
Signage: Assume 16 signs along length of project are with an average replacement
cost of $100 per sign. Annual Cost =160/7 = $230/year
Striping: Approximately 11,000 of striping @ $0.75/ft= $8250 plus 10 arrows and
legends @ $350 per each arrow and legend combination = $3500
Total annualized cost of signs and markings = 8250+3500/7= $1,680/year
4. Street Overlay Annualized Costs: $86,666 for overlay for the section of Shackleford
Road adjacent to the proposed mall site. Assume overlaying on a 15 -year cycle,
therefore the annualized cost = $5,777/year.
Total Annualized Costs for Street Operations = $38,167
"We're Proud Of Our WOrkSI "02212001 Annual costs for maintenance and open
•
Central Arkansas Transit Authority
901 Maple Street • North Little Rock, Arkansas 72114 - Ph 501-375-6717 Fax 501-375-6812 - www_
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cy Carney, City Manager
FROM: Keith Jones, Executive Director
SUBJECT: Transit Service to Summit Mall
DATE: February 16, 2001
Cy, you asked for an estimate of the cost of transit service to the proposed
Summit Mall, Cost depends on the level of service to be provided, so I am
making three different assumptions. These can be expanded or modified if you
have other suggestions.
1. Extend existing bus route to Summit Niall
. This would have no continuing
costs. It would have some minor start up cost involving he design and printing of
new timetables and system map, bus stop signs, and possibly one or more bus
shelters. The net operating cost increase would be zero, as it would not increase
'the annual miles of bus travel in the City. The existing buses would have a
longer route but would make fewer round trips during the service day because of
the added length.
As we mentioned earlier in a report to Metroplan on this topic, the closest bus
route is Baptist Med Center, which recently was extanded to the Arkansas Heart
Hospital. Extending it further would increase the trip time from downtown to the
end of the line from its current 45 -minute length to almost 60 minutes. Currently,
a bus on that route will mace 9.5 round trips in a 14 hours span. An extended
route would lower that to 7 round trips per day. That would result in lower
ridership. Of course, there could be offsetting gains by new riders to the Summit
Mall. We have not made any estimates of ridership loss or gain but could do that
if you request it.
2. Additional Bus on Extended Route, Because of the increased trip time, the
City should consider adding a bus to the Baptist.Route if the route were extended
to the Summit Mali so that frequency Is maintained. Assuming a 14 hour span of
CAMMACK VILLAGE • LITTLE ROCK Is MAUMELLE - NORTH LITTLE ROCK - PULASKI COUNTY - SHERWO(
02/16/01 FRI 10:18 (TX/RX NO 97671
_ _ - .. ..v I . vz
service on weekdays, eleven hours on Saturdays, and 8 hours on Sundays, the
annual cost of one additional bus would be $115,700 per year. This includes
labor and fringes for the driver, fuel cost, and a pier -mile cost for maintenance,
insurance, and other indirect costs. It does not include purchasing a new bus or
• depreciation cost for the rolling stock. CATA should have 'sufficient buses in its
fleet to add one bus to the daily service.
Both options 1 and 2 assume we can devise a suitable turnaround point for the
bus either on Shackleford or in the parking lot/circulator drive network of the mall.
3. On -demand Service. CAT could serve Summit Mall on a demand basis
with vans or small buses. We are very close to implementing the west Little
Rock van service which will extend the reach of transit service by taking persons
from the end of the bus lines on the West Markham and Rodney Parham lines to
the job markets throughout the west Little Rock area. The initial service, funded
in part by the FTA Jobs Access grant, does not reach as far south as Kanis.
However, such service could be extended from the Baptist Line as well, and the
fixed -route large bus service could terminate at Baptist Hospital. Vans linked
with our dispatcher and maybe even directly to riders via cell phone would serve
a zone that would extend to the Summit Mall and other trip destinations in the
vicinity. The number of hours of service would be virtually the same as listed in
Option 2 above. Operating costs are similar also, but could be allocated over
more destinations. Because vans and small buses have shorter lifespans than a
full sized bus, depreciation and replacement costs would need to be part of any
budget planning. As we get the west Little Rock service underway within the
next six weeks, we will obtain much information on costs, rider response, and the
size of the area that can be covered by one and two vans. We will be glad to
revisit this option in more detail if you wish.
Van or small bus service, if it were able to serve the mall entrance directly, would
alleviate the concerns we have about the distance from a bus stop on
Shackleford to the mail entrance. Long distances, and possible grade problems,
could present problems for persons with disabilities. in general, a lorig walking
distance from the stop to the building works against the desirabilty of transit use
to a shopping destination. However, the typical design of mall parking lots and
drives, as well as the pavement thickness and composition, usually do not
accommodate large buses very well.
Let me know if you have any questions or need more information.
02/16/01 FRI 10:18 [TX/RX NO 97671
F
z
w
O
10
I ORDINANCE NO. 18,456
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY A PLANNED COMMERCIAL
4 DISTRICT AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
5 PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT ENTITLED SUMMIT MALL --
6 REVISED PCD (24923-A), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
7 CORNER OF SHACKLEFORD ROAD AND INTERSTATE430, IN
8 THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; TO AMEND LITTLE
9 ROCK, ARK., ORDINANCE NO. 15,385 (DECEMBER 1, 1987) ; TO
10 AMEND CHAPTER 36 OF THE LITTLE ROCK, ARK., REVISED
11 CODE; TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL TO
12 THIS ZONING MODIFICATION; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
'13
14 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors previously approved an ordinance to rezone a
15 97 acre parcel from R-2 and 0-2 zoning districts to Planned Commercial Development
16 ("PCD) in Little Rock, Ark., Ordinance No. 15,385 (December 1, 1987), and
17 WFIEREAS, Summit Mall, LLC, and Construction Developers, Inc., working
18 through the Simon Development Group of Indianapolis, Indiana, have requested certain
19 modifications to the existing PCD, and
20 WHEREAS, after several public. di cussions before the Little Rock Planning
21 tit„fazy i; sslon and the City Board of Directors, it has been determined that subject to certain
22 conditions such a request is consistent with City zoning ordinances,
23 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
24 OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS:
25 Section 1. Little Rock, Ark., Ordinance No. 15,385 (December 1, 1987) is hereby
26 amended to provide for modification of the Planned Zoning Development previously
27 granted, and the Summit Mall --Revised PCD (Z -4923-A) is hereby granted subject to the
28 provisions and conditions set forth below.
[PAGE 1 OF 17]
1 Section 2. The zone classification for the following described property shall be
2 changed from PCD to Revised PCD;
3 Part of the SE 1/4 Section 9, and part of the NE 1/4 , Section 16, T -I -N, 21 R -13-W,
4 Pulaski County Arkansas, being more particularly described as:
5 Beginning at the Southeast corner of the SE 1/4 of said Section 9 (said point being
6 the SE corner of Lot 1, Interstate 430 Office Park Addition, recorded as Plat #A-
7 497, in the records of the Circuit Clerk and Ex -officio Recorder of Pulaski
8 County, Arkansas); thence S02°03'47"W, along the East line of the NE 1/4,
9 Section 16, 971.75 feet; thence N87°31'51" West 1,569.95 feet to a point on the
10 Easterly right-of-way line of Interstate Route No.430; thence Northeasterly and
11 Northwesterly along said Easterly right-of-way line the following bearings and
12 distances; NO2°10'09" East 971.49 feet; N55°59'26" West 37.86 feet;
13 NO2°05'03" East 576.76 feet; N01058'01" East, 183.59 feet; N18011'56" East
14 470.50 feet; N25°35'21" East 372.20 feet; N49014'40" East 555.15 feet;
15 N67°54'24" East 92.60 feet; N75037'40" East 187.92 feet; N82021'19" East
16 357.10 feet; S77°22'36" East 186.46 feet to a point on the West right-of-way line
17 of Shackleford road; thence Southerly along said West right-of-way the
18 following bearings and distances; S06°57'53" East 252.26 feet; S05°36'25" West
19 200.16 feet; S30°08'55" East 119.09 feet; S86°39'32" East 24.00 feet to a point
20 on the East line of the SE 1/4 said Section 9; thence S02°05'50" West 1,228.78
21 feet; thence N87131'27" West 590.0 feet along the North line of Lot 1, Interstate
22 430 Office Park Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; thence
23 S021106'05" West 300.00 feet along the West line of said Lot 1; thence
24 S87°31'39" East 589.84 feet along the South line of said Lot 1 to the Point of
25 Beginnings containing 97.446 acres, more or less.
26 Section 3. The revised final development plan shall be approved as recommended
27 by the Little Rock Planning Commission and, as set forth in Exhibit B.
28 Section 4. The change in zoning classification for the Summit Mall — Revised
29 PCD is conditioned upon the following:
[PAGE 2 of 171
1 (A) The grant of final development plan approval within the time specified
2 by Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code § 36-454(e) (1988);
3 (B) Compliance with the special conditions, whether recommended by the
4 Little Rock Planning Commission and approved by the Board of Directors, or
5 as set forth as follows:
6 (1) Construction of the perimeter ring road around the site, built to
7 commercial street standards -- in terms of width, curb and
8 gutter, horizontal and vertical alignment, and drainage -- to be
9 used as access for commercial activity;
10 (2) Completion of the arterial lighting plan for Shackleford Road
11
adjacent to the site;
12
(3) Dedication of a minimum of 45 -feet of right-of-way, and
13
otherwise as needed, as measured from the centerline of
14
Shackleford Road;
15
(4) Construction of sidewalks as shown on the final development
16
plan and, as approved by the City.
17
(C) Compliance with the following special conditions which, if not
18
imposed, would have a negative impact on adjacent property, and more
19
particularly on Camp Aldersgate and the Women's Division of the United
20
Methodist Church (collectively referred to as "Camp Aldersgate"), located
21
adjacent to this site and, which the Developer has agreed may, and should be,
22
incorporated into this Ordinance as long as such property is primarily used for
23
social service programs and not for unrelated commercial purposes:
24
(1) Water Quality Assurance for Aldersgate Lake. Summit Mall shall
25
provide sedimentary control so as to assure that there will be no
26
degradation of Aldersgate Lake ("the Lake") as a result of the
27
construction and operation of The Summit Mall. In addition,
28
during the construction phase of development of The Summit
29
Mall:
30
(a) All grading of the site where The Summit Mall is
[PAGE 3 OF 171
1
to be constructed will take place during the initial
2
stages of construction;
3
(b)
Storm water run-off quality will be maintained
4
during and after construction of the The Summit
5
Mall with detention facilities, approved by the City
6
Public Works Department, constructed and in
7
place;
8
(c)
To assure water quality in the Lake,
9
(i) At Developer's expense, a geotechnical
10
engineering company will test water
11
quality at the Lake prior to the
12
commencement of any construction on
13
The Summit Mall;
14
(ii) At Developer's expense, the geotechnical
15
engineering company will periodically
16
retest the Lake for water quality to insure
17
that the construction of The Summit Mall
18
site does not degrade the water quality of
19
the Lake;
20
(iii) If there is degradation of the Lake caused
21
by construction of The Summit Mall, the
22
Developer shall, at its expense, take any
23
and all steps necessary to correct the
24
problem;
25
(2) ShackleWord
Road Improvements Developer agrees to widen
26
Shackleford Road
to include at least two thru lanes in each direction
27
plus turn lanes in
front of The Summit Mall, without any cost or
28
expense to Camp
Alderstgate, with the understanding that Camp
29
Aldersgate is also not required to make any dedication of property to
30
the City;
[PAGE 4 OF 171
1
(3) Lighting Plan. Any ligh€Ing plan for the parking lots and areas of
2
The Summit Mall will be designed in a manner to minimize the
3
impact on Camp Aldersgate. This plan shall include the use of cut off
4
type fixtures along the frontage of Shackleford Road. This plan shall
5
extend to the development of the peripheral parcels shown on Exhibit
6
C to this Ordinance, and marked as Block "A", Block "B" and Block
7
"C" (the "Peripheral Parcels");
8
(4) Landscaping. To assist with the buffer between The Summit
9
Mall and Camp Aldersgate, Developer shall plant one six foot tall
10
evergreen tree at a density of one (1) tree per ten (10) lineal feet along
11
the frontage of Camp Aldersgate. An evergreen tree may be a pine or
12
broadleaf variety, and shall be at least six (6) feet tall. ;
13
(5) Use Restrictions. Developer shall place restrictions on the use of
14
the Peripheral Parcels, whether developed by Developer or another
15
person, and shall prohibit the uses set forth on Exhibit D to this
16
Ordinance.
17
(6) Signage. Freestanding signage for individual uses on Peripheral
18
Parcels shall be restricted to monument signs of 10 -feet maximum
19
height and shall be oriented perpendicular to Shackleford Road.
20
Regulations for building signage for the Peripheral Parcels shall require
21
tenants to turn off signage lighting within one (1) hour a store is closed
22
to the public.;
23
(1) Security Fencing. Developer shall provide an 8 -foot vinyl coated
24
chain link fence along the frontage property of Camp Aldersgate
25
abutting Shackleford Road. Developer agrees to complete this fencing
26
within six (6) months after completion of the construction of the
27
Shackleford Road improvements and planting of the evergreens
28
described in the landscaping conditions set forth in paragraph (C)(4).
29
(D) The developer shall assure that all necessary permits as may be
30
required by any local, state, or national laws and regulations are obtained
[PAGE 5 OF 171
1
flood hazard area;
2
(E) Developer shall submit all plans to the appropriate regulatory
3
authority for work in the right-of-way prior to the approval to start work in
4
these areas;
5
(F) The final development plan shall not be approved, and no building
6
permit issued, until the Developer can assure that the following City
7
infrastructure improvements, as further shown on Exhibit E to this ordinance,
8
shall be completed by the opening of The Summit Mall. Proof of completion
9
shall be deemed adequate when:
10
(1) The Developer has complied with Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code
11
§ 31-431 to —435 (1988), as may be amended, ordinances for the
12
assurance of the completion of infrastructure improvements; or,
13
(2) The City has established within its budget the funds and
14
appropriations that will assure the completion of any particular
15
item listed.
16
(G) The City infrastructure improvements referred to in subsection (F)
17
above shall include the following:
18
(1) From I-430 south side access roads north to Peachtree
19
Shackleford Improvements including:
20
(a) Signalized and lighted intersections;
21
(b) Alignment of Peachtree street;
22
(c) Improvements to the on-ramp for I-430 southbound
23
from Shackleford;
24
(d) Improvements to the off -ramp for I-430 southbound to
25
Shackleford;
26
(e) Improvements to the on-ramp for 1-430 northbound to
27
Shackleford;
28
(f) Improvements to the off -ramp for 1-430 northbound
29
from Shackleford;
30
(g) Improvements and widening to the Shackleford bridge
31
over I- 430;
[PAGE 6 OF 141
1 Shackleford;
2 (f) Improvements to the off -ramp for I-430 northbound
3 from Shackleford;
4 (g) Improvements and widening to the Shackleford bridge
5 over 1- 430;
6 (h) Lighting of the interstate within this area;
7 (2) Work on The Summit Mall frontage including:
8 (a) Improvements on Shackleford south of 1-430 on -ramps;
9 (b) Signalization at the three intersections at The Summit
10 Mall drives;
11 (c) Street lighting within the area not otherwise covered by
12 the provisions of this Ordinance;
13 (d) Construction of appropriate conduit for street lighting
14 and traffic signalization;
15 (3) Work on Offsite Intersection Signalization including:
16 (a) Signalization at the intersection of 36' Street and
17 Shackleford;
18 (b) Signalization at the intersection of Colonel Glenn Road
19 and Shackleford;
20 (c) Signalization at the intersection of Colonel Glenn Road
21 and the I-430 west side;
22 (d) Signalization at the intersection of Colonel GlennRoad
23 and the I430 east side.
24 Section 5. The map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the
25 City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and the designated district map be and is hereby amended to
26 the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided in
27 Section 4 hereof as shown on Exhibit A.
28 Section 6. The aspects of this ordinance which would allow the issuance of a
29 building permit shall not be in full force and effect until the final development plan referred
30 to above has been approved.
[PAGE 7 OF 171
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
Section 7. Severability. In the event any title, section, subsection, subdivision,
paragraph, subparagraph, 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, including but not limited to Little Rock, All,
Ordinance No. 15,385 (December 1, 1987), are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.
PASSED: April 3, 2001
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Nwic'y Wopa, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
Thomas M. Carpenter, City Ai4omcy
[PAGE 8 OF 171
Dailey, Mayor
H
Are. Zoild lc
c,'Ar Comer oz Slacide.Ord R.►_ 'aI --0
L`,
CI: 24.04
TPC: TINROM 0 2[Od.CO Fea
Pa.. I i
5
[PAGE 9 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT: SUMMIT MALL REVISED PCD (Z49230A)
AMENDMENT TO CITY ZONING MAP
Ex mrr A
I
ui
I1 �[ Y
n-- W
w W N n=n
0 to !J
i ` z
3< o O i W
LU
M
o-
vAd U)
O
W
LL: N U1 n O � � �
_ Q
p O <
LU
N Ln s
O v;
i
to o .�
2 W
O
a
O C—
I ,
I
I ,
1 Z '411
� w �
H
' "'tiC'N313C
[PAGE 10 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT: SUN IIT MALL REVISED PCD (Z -49230A)
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ExmBIT B
-o
z
N C
of
U 0
=
O
to
1.11
f' -
Q
w
z
u� �El
z
w a
� n �
O
Y
- o d
~O �w
�o
_o
Q<
0
6L --
-9
L- - u _�
oc �
Z
0
z
z
w
0
(PAGE 11 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT: SUMMIT MALL REVISED PCD (Z 19230A)
PROPOSED SITE PLAN: SHADED PERIPHERAL PARCELS
ExEEwrr C
1
2
List of Prohibited Uses on Peripheral Parcels (A, B & C )
3 As long as the property adjacent to The Summit Mall -- commonly referred to as Camp
4 Aldersgate and, owned by the Women's Division of the United Methodist Church — is
5 primarily used for social service programs and not for unrelated commercial programs,
6 then the following commercial uses shall not be permitted on the outparcels identified as
7 the shaded areas of Eximn C to this Ordinance.
8
9 [1] Alcoholic Beverage shop (except incidental to specialty grocery or other food
10 service);
11 [2] Ambulance service post;
12 [3] Amusement, (commercial, inside) (except incidental to restaurant use);
13 [4] Amusement, commercial (outside);
14 [5] Auto glass or muffler shop;
15 [6] Auto parts, sales with limited motor vehicle parts installation shall be limited
16 to Block A or C provided that building shall be no closer than 200 feet to
17 Shackleford Road right of way. Auto repair bay doors shall not face
18 Shackleford Road. Enhanced landscaping shall be provided with the parking
19 area fronting the bay door and, which shall include trees at 30 feet on center
20 in the area fronting the bay;
21 [7] Auto rental or leasing (no service, sales or repair);
[PAGE 12 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEvELOFMENT: Sumwr MALL REVISED PCD (24923-A)
LIST OF PRoiI>BriED USES ON PERIPHERAL TRACTS TO CAMP ALDERSGATE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
[8] Auto repair garage shall be limited to Block A or C provided that building
shall be no closer than 200 feet to Shackleford Road right of way. Auto
repair bay doors shall not face Shackleford Road. Enhanced landscaping
shall be provided with the parking area fronting the bay door tand, which
shall include trees at 30 feet on center in the area fronting the bay;
[9] Animal clinic (enclosed);
[10] Appliance repair (except incidental to appliance sales);
[11] Bar, lounge or tavern (except incidental to restaurant use);
[12] Building material sales (open);
[13] Bus station and terminal;
[14] Cabinet and woodwork shop;
[15] Car wash;
[ 16] Cigar, tobacco store;
[17] 24 -Hour Clinic (medical, dental or optical);
[18] College dormitory;
[19] College fraternity or sorority;
[20] College, university or seminary;
[21] Commercial parking lot or garage;
[22] 24 -Hour Community welfare or health center;
[PAGE 13 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT: Sumwr MALL REVISED PCD (Z -4923-A)
LIST OF PAOHmrIBD USES ON PERiPaLF At. TRACTS TO CAMP ALDERSGATE
EXMIT D
1
[23]
Crematorium;
2
[24]
Duplication shop;
3
[25]
Eating place with drive-in service;
4
[26]
Establishment for the care of alcoholic, narcotic, or psychiatric patients;
5
[27]
Feed store
6
[28]
Glass or glazer (installation, repair and sales);
7
[29]
Group care facility
8
[30]
Home center;
9
[31]
Hospital;
10
[321
Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting (where 24 hours);
11
[33]
Laboratory;
12
[341
Landscape service;
13
[35]
Lawn and garden center, enclosed;
14
[36]
Lawn and garden center, open display;
15
[37]
Laundromat;
16
[381
Laundry, domestic cleaning;
17
[39]
Lodge or fraternal organization;
[PAGE 14 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT: Summrr MALL REvrsED PCD (Z -4923-A)
LIST OF PROHIBr1ED USES ON PERIPITERAL TRACTS To CAMP ALDERSGmE
Exmrr D
1
[40]
Lumberyard;
2
[41]
Miniwarehouse;
3
[42]
Mortuary or funeral home;
4
[43]
Multifamily dwellings;
5
[44]
Nursing home or convalescent home;
6
[45]
Office warehouse;
7
[46]
Pawnshop;
8
[47]
Pet Shop (unless fully enclosed or incidental to pet supply retail);
9
[48]
Plant nursery;
10
[49]
Private club with dining or bar service;
11
[50]
Recycling facility, automated;
12
[51]
Seasonal and temporary sales, outside;
13
[52]
Service station (except Parcel A);
14
[53]
Small engine repair shall be limited to Block A or C provided that building
15
shall be no closer than 200 feet to Shackleford Road right of way. Auto
16
repair bay doors shall not face Shackleford Road. Enhanced landscaping
17
shall be provided with the parking area fronting the bay door and, which
18
shall include trees at 30 feet on center in the area fronting the bay;
19
[54]
Swimming pool sales and supply;
[PAGE 15 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT: SummTr MALL REVISED PCD (Z4923 -A)
LIST OF PROHBIrMD USES ON PERIPHERAL TRACTS To CAMP ALDERSGATE
Err D
1
[55]
Taxidermist;
2
[56]
Theater;
3
[57]
Tool and equipment rental (with outside display);
4
[58]
Upholstery shop, auto;
5
[59]
Upholstery shop, furniture.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
[PAGE 16 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT: SUMNUT MALL REVISED PCD (Z -4923-A)
LISTOF PROinBnED USES ONPERiPIMRA1, TRACTS TO CAMPALDERSGATE
Exmrr D
3=
Q
.0
O
O
Q
N
V)
LLJ
CL
LU
m.
LU
o
�.
W
a
LUCon
CL
V)
cn
Z
Q
_Q v
Q O w
G� Z N LU
LU
LW u
LU ri
❑ m 0
U LCLLU
m
O •V z
C) W
LU U
0
J V
� W
J � -
0
\o [- 00 ON
o
E
�
U
H
a
w
.
a
a
0
�
a
a
�
v
o
O
\o [- 00 ON
o
E
�
H
w
�
0
H
H
�I
H
F�-�
�--,
A
�
p
�
�
�
�
J
�
Cd
gi
o�
H
C44
0
b
U
0
°
. �
p
•2
O
v
O
U
`°
W
N
C's
Cd
ami
--�
ani
O
0
c
C,3
•Cdto
•�
O
0
p
CD
Cd
• d
C
0
V
cd
O
C)
2.
;>-,cd
-"
3
bA
Cd
.. a
r
CI,
o
�
o
p
1-.4.!
0sU,
U
N
O
O
O
•},
cd
U
co
cd
N
Q,
S
.0
,�
N
cd
cd
O
�
'
O
.�
5
U
�
+•'
N
cd
U
°
O
N
.��
0
O
naUn
.
bo
o
to
�
>
0
0
UD
o
bo
cd
3
-d
'�
c
C
-°
•�
o
CL)
a
o0
Cc
ami
CU
O/
'd
s�'�
,cd
o
icdr:.
p
U
-P
U
U
F�
�0
N
Cd0
0
o
3
o
C
4
H
J
H
H
H
H
ProV
W
1�4
H
W
N
as
0
0
0
0
0
iC
0
�
0
3
�1
RK
O
o
o
J. -
N
O
U
+l
U
-4
M
--
O
Go
o
sem,
N
o
Cd
cd
�
�
N
�
N
O
CL,
O
Cd
P,7�
A
COO
ti
aCd,
�
•�
Ca7-
' d
H
Cdrw
�
cd
o
.�
;--440,
o
7ZI
,::1`-
In
U
3
Cd
C'S2406CS
0
�
x
rig
�d
,y
y-10
c/]
O.
0
O
N
Q,
a/
.
V1
O
cd
t+''
U
p
,r,
4
...
N
•�
-t:
N
as
0
0
0
0
0
iC
0
0
0
0
RK
O
r—
dt'
N
O
M
—4
—4
-4
M
--
N
as
a
a
a
RK
o
�
�
A
3
A
COO
ti
aCd,
�
•�
Ca7-
' d
H
N
zr
w-_Nw
Ps
a
o 'c�
ol
c
C
P -4o
U �
vCU
G
� � o
U � n
00 4
.. i+
o
U } 0 3
cd'� o a
O CL) 'U
y
0 .0
U
GO
C (D
N C
0 v
� C �
Cd
Lj
C a
bA l U �'
•� C,4) a
D U
O
0
0
U
0
U
00
[l-
kn
"C7
N
C4
U
C
44
•3
cis
C
CCIJ
U 'c U
L) O O
N
Q�
1 � O
al
a� a�
� 0 3
a� En
N C
Cd ;3
N �
Cd
'U
O
Cd
N
CC
,-d
Cd
0
U
0
U
O
U
U
v�
V
M
Cd
..0
C
O
Cd
Cn
cd
O
En
O
O
U
N
O
Cd
O~ Cd
.. 4
O
'd
cri
+C�+
U
c�
cd
OR
N
O
W
N
bA
lci
O
kn
w
a�
N
cd
rn
Cd
N
O
to
0
H
i
O o �10 o 0
O kn to M O
O d It - -�
O � 00
~ N
b9
z
j
E-+
40,
-C,'
w
Cd
Cd
as
b
�
U
bn
U
Cd
�
o
o
�
�
U
Cd
F�
cd
bo
N
a.
cd
O
�
�
4-4
o
cd
a�
cd
m
O
O
coU
f
o
a�
•
Ld
En
a
0
C)
cri
H
y
�
O
N
O
W
N
bA
lci
O
kn
w
a�
N
cd
rn
Cd
N
O
to
0
H
i
O o �10 o 0
O kn to M O
O d It - -�
O � 00
~ N
b9
z
j
rn t� o E,-: C� co
--+ O •--� M d' �O d1 N �O O �7 N
69 59 69 69 69 69 64 64 69 Ff3 cl
64
co
a�
ani
H
ami
•�NM,:t %cr-wa,
ftN
w
W
�
�
z
w
i�l
U
0
AJ
�O
�
U
b
�i
O
U
U
�O
U
a
�
PC
o
vim]
Cd4-4
U
�
O
N
4
O
�+ cd
[sz�
O
4i
o
F
C
CJO�
co
�
�
W
a
� o
� N
M
V� f;oq
rn t� o E,-: C� co
--+ O •--� M d' �O d1 N �O O �7 N
69 59 69 69 69 69 64 64 69 Ff3 cl
64
co
a�
ani
H
ami
•�NM,:t %cr-wa,
ftN
b
O CD CD CD CD CD - CD (D CD CD CD
O O~ �O 00 �1 01 Vi W N
CD
CD
CD
N
J�wW W NjIQ
W-.1\�O�--00N00OO-,l
O1 .A ON \�c O -P., O �.O O W
�A m O �,O 01 A O,� W O\ J
b
CD
P o
CD �n
o CL
O cD
CD 0
f7sa
CD
oCD
C� 110
00 O.
J CD
(rq CD
O �
O
' CD
UR
O CCD
-be ':s
CD
v �
-PCD
00 O .
CD CD
I", U4
CD
CD.
y�
CD
O CD
O V"'
CD �
�--� �
O CD
CD
WX
CD
L02.
CDCn
CD
C
Kr+
i
WILLIAMS & ANDERSON PLC
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
1 11 CENTER STREET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
PHILIP S. ANDERSON
psa@williamsanderson.com
February 24, 2004
Mr. Steve Beck
Acting Director of Department
of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
(501) 372-0800
TELECOPIER
(501) 372-6453
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(501) 3968428
Via Hand Delivery
Re: Ordinance Number 18,456, adopted on April 3, 2001
Planned Zoning Development entitled "Summit Mall -Revised PCD"
City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development File No. Z -4923-A
Dear Mr. Beck:
This firm represents Summit Mall Company, LLC, which by our letter of January 22,
2004, requested an extension of the referenced Planned Zoning Development for the maximum
amount of time available under the Code of Ordinances.
Our client has announced that it will not proceed with the development plan approved by
the above ordinance, and this is to withdraw its request for an extension.
Summit Mall Company will explore all possible options with respect to the Summit site,
and it looks forward to working with your department and the Planning Commission in doing so.
Cordially yours,
LIAMS & ANDERSON PLC
Philip S. Anderson
PSA/sre
cc: Chairperson, Little Rock Planning Commission
Thomas M. Carpenter, Esquire
WILLIAMS & ANDERSON PLC
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
1 11 CENTER STREET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
PHILIP S. ANDERSON
psa@williamsanderson.com
February 24, 2004
Mr. Steve Beck
Acting Director of Department
of Planning and Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
(501) 372-0800
TELECOPIER
(501) 372-6453
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(501) 396-8428
Via Hand Delivery
Re: Ordinance Number 18,456, adopted on April 3, 2001
Planned Zoning Development entitled "Summit Mall -Revised PCD"
City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development File No. Z -4923-A
Dear Mr. Beck:
This firm represents Summit Mall Company, LLC, which by our letter of January 22,
2004, requested an extension of the referenced Planned Zoning Development for the maximum
amount of time available under the Code of Ordinances.
Our client has announced that it will not proceed with the development plan approved by
the above ordinance, and this is to withdraw its request for an extension.
Summit Mall Company will explore all possible options with respect to the Summit site,
and it looks forward to working with your department and the Planning Commission in doing so.
Cordially yours,
LIAMS & ANDERSON PLC
P
Philip S. Anderson
PSA/sre
cc: Chairperson, Little Rock Planning Commission
Thomas M. Carpenter, Esquire
BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION
rkf
TO: MAYOR AND BOARD OF D CTORS
FROM: CY CARNEY, CITY MAN il✓R
SUBJECT: SUMMIT MALL
DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2001
The enclosed information is provided for comparisons of the proposed Summit Mall with Park
Plaza and University Malls.
Exhibit I identifies the Summit Mall along with the anticipated spin-off development around the
Summit Mall. It compares this with Park Plaza and University Malls in areas of square footage,
appraised value, property taxes, annual sales, sales taxes and employees. It is assumed that the spin-
off activity around Summit Mall is an area of twenty(20) acres with 20% land coverage. Also, a land
and building value of $133.90 per square foot and $241,875 sales per square foot, which is equal to
the values of the Summit mall itself. Annual sales tax to Little Rock is equal to total sales times
.01027 which is .005 for Little Rock plus .00527 for Pulaski County. Employees are based on one
employee for each 450 square feet. Property taxes are assessed at .20 of total value times a current
Millage Rate of .068.
Exhibit II identifies potential decline of sales tax to the City if Park Plaza and University Malls
experience declines of 14, 20 and 50 percent. The 14% decline is equal to the actual experience of
Oak Court Mall in Memphis after the new XXlolfchase Galleria Mall opened in 1997 approximately
seven(7) miles away. It should be noted that Dillards and Goldsmiths are tenants in the Oak Court
Mall (721,800 sq. ft.) as well as the new Xliolfchase Galleria Mall (1,000,000 sq. ft). Even though the
Oak Court Mall lost 14% of sales the first year Wolfchase was open, it only lost 1.5% of sales the
second year.
Exhibit III identifies a comparison of Summit )\Mall in terms of Sales Tax to die City of Little Rock
and Property Tax to the City of Little Rock if it were located at its proposed site at Interstate 430 or
in North Little Rock or in Benton.
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS