HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4923-A Application 7;Fowl/9;3— A
F,j k Y - �o
Reoftove
S*U• M M I T
M*A L L
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
A Planned Commercial Development by Summit Mall Company, L.L.C.
August 2000
r
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 ' Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
January 12, 2004
Roderick C. Vosper
Regional Vice President — Development
Summit Mall Company, LLC and
Construction Developers, Inc.
c/o Simon Development Group
115 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 7033
Indianapolis, IN 46207
Dear Mr. Vosper:
On April 3, 2001, Ordinance No. 18,456 was adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors
establishing a Planned Zoning Development titled Summit Mall — Revised PCD referenced as
File No. Z -4923-A and located at the southwest corner of Shackleford Road and Interstate 430.
Section 36-454(e) of the Code of Ordinances allows the applicant three (3) years from the date of
passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary development plan to submit the final
development plan.
Section 36-454(e) of the Code of Ordinances was amended by Ordinance No. 18,863 dated May
6, 2003, which states requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning
Commission not less than ninety days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission
may grant one extension of not more than two (2) years.
Since the Summit Mall — Revised PCD was approved prior to the adoption of Ordinance No.
18,863 you will have until January 23, 2004 to submit a letter requesting a time extension.
Failure to request and file a time extension maybe cause for revocation of the previous approval.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact Dana Carney or Donna James
of our staff at (501) 371-4790.
Respectfully,
Steve Beck
Acting Director of Planning Director
Carney, Dana
From: Carpenter, Tom
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:44 PM
To: 'nate@wecc-law.com ; 'gary@wecc-law.com ; 'psa@williarnsanderson.com
'jaskew@williamsanderson.com ; 'kterry@williamsanderson.com ; 'gitelman@uark.edu'
Cc: Mann, Bill; Moore, Bruce; Beck, Steve; Carney, Dana; Turner, Bob
Subject: Summit Mall litigation -- What's next
® I
summitltr1.110.doc
Dear Group -
The attached letter is being sent out by U.S. mail today. Please review and let me have
your thoughts.
Tom
Thomas M. Carpenter
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
500 West Markham, Ste. 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501)371-6875(0)
(501)371-4675(F)
Thomas M. Carpenter
City Attorney
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
500 West Markham, Ste. 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Writer's Direct Dial: (501) 371-6875
Writer's E-mail: tcarpenter aUi ittlerock.state.ar.us
January 12, 2004
Gary D. Corum, Esq.
Nate Coulter, Esq.
WILSON, ENGSTROM, CORUM & COULTER
200 South Commerce, Ste. 600
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Professor Morton Gitelman
1229 Lakeridge Drive
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Phillip S. Anderson, Esq.
Jess Askew III, Esq.
Ms. Kelly S. Terry
Ms. Sarah M. Priebe
WILLIAMS & ANDERSON
111 Center Street, 22d Floor
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
Re: Summit Mall Company, LLC et al v. Russell Lemond, et al
No. IJ 2001-2246, Pulaski Circuit [17th]
Counselors:
Telephone (501) 371-4527
Telecopier (501) 371-4675
The Arkansas Supreme Court's opinion has certainly resolved most of the issues
in this case. The mandate has now been returned to Judge Pierce and I suppose that the
case is ripe for final consideration of the City's request for declaratory judgment on the
referendum issue.
The City is still concerned about certain aspects of the referendum issue and has
considered whether to ask Judge Pierce to establish a briefing schedule on a single
question as to how the right of judicial review, or for that matter judicial review in
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Letter to Counsel
Re: Summit Mall Company, LLC, et at v. Russell Lemond, et at
(actions on remand)
12 JAN 2004: Page 2 of 3
general, for adverse zoning decisions can be handled if the referendum provisions of
Amendment 7 are applied to a zoning ordinance. It is clear that the ordinance is
question is legislative.
While this issue is of some concern to the City, there is really no reason to raise it
in this case if the Summit Mall as planned in Little Rock, Ark., Ordinance No. 18,456
(April 3, 2001) is not going to be built. Nothing official has been filed with the City, but
there have been published reports that a much different plan is contemplated by the
developers. There have also been concerns raised that the shopping mall will not be
built at all.
If the City does not raise the legal issue mentioned above and Judge Pierce rules
that the ordinance is subject to referendum, the Mayor will need to call an election
within a reasonable period of time. This time frame has not been defined by the courts,
but there are some cases which suggest that one year is too long. There are elections to
be held in May, 2004, and in November, 2004. The November date may be too distant
to withstand a reasonableness challenge, and the May date needs to be selected fairly
soon if the City wishes to use it. The advantage to the City is that if the referendum
election can be held on these dates the $60,000 it costs for a special election can be
substantially reduced since various election services can be shared.
Section 4(A) of the ordinance requires that the final development plan be
approved in accordance with Little Rock, Ark., Code § 36-454(e) (1988). This Code
provision requires final plan development to be completed within three years of the
passage of the ordinance, or April 3, 2004. It seems senseless for the City to call an
election in May on an ordinance that is subject to revocation because of the failure to get
a final development plan approved in April. I assume that the Summit Mall could
request some judicial relief on this issue in light of the time spent on the trial and appeal
of this case. But if such relief is not sought, nor granted, the City's dilemma on a
possible election still exists.
Even if we litigate the judicial review issue this question still persists. The
enforceability of the ordinance could come into question before the issue could be
decided, and definitely before an election could be held.
500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (T) (501) 371-4527 (F) (501) 371-4675
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
Letter to Counsel
Re: Summit Mall Company, LLC, et at v. Russell Lemond, et at
(actions on remand)
12 JAN 2004: Page 3 of 3
Of course, all of this becomes moot if the Summit Mall does not intend to build
the structure presently contemplated by LRO 18,456. It seems that our request for an
answer to this question is appropriate and timely.
I noted in some of the news coverage after the Supreme Court decision it was
suggested that perhaps a referendum would not be necessary if the plaintiffs and the
Summit Mall could come to some agreement on a new proposal. I cannot share that
opinion since the referendum petitions were signed by far more people than simply the
plaintiffs in this action.
So, I am looking for suggestions on how to proceed. I suppose any of the parties
could seek some kind of hearing before Judge Pierce, but if the contemplated project is
not going to be constructed then the City could simply repeal the ordinance and moot
the referendum issue. If the Summit Mall is not going to request an extension on the
time to submit the final development plan, the City could wait until after the April 3,
2004, deadline, move to revoke the PCD ordinance, and then moot the election issue. I
am sure that there are other possibilities and ask that we get together and discuss them
as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Thomas M. Carpenter
City Attorney
TMC:ct
CC. Mayor Dailey and Members of the Board of Directors
Bruce T. Moore, City Manager
Charles R. Turner, Assistant City Manager
Steve Beck, Acting Director of Planning & Development
500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (T) (501) 371-4527 (F) (501) 371-4675
Carney, Dana
From:
Nate Coulter [nate@wecc-law.com]
Sent:
Thursday, January 15, 2004 11:53 AM
To:
Carpenter, Tom; gary@wecc-law.com; psa@williamsanderson.com;
jaskew@williamsanderson.com; kterry@williamsanderson.com; gitelman@uark.edu
Cc:
Mann, Bill; Moore, Bruce; Beck, Steve; Carney, Dana; Turner, Bob
Subject:
Re: Summit Mall litigation -- What's next
Thank you, Tom. I've been in trial in Ft. Smith and am just now seeing your
electronic version of the letter -- presumably the hard copy is in the
mountain of papers piled high on my desk. I can say without much reflection
on it that I appreciate the gist of the letter. I agree that the number of
petitioners exceeds the number of plaintiffs and the former are not bound by
the latter's agreements. But I do not believe my clients will accept any
agreement in lieu of the election that is short of the legal equivalent of a
successful referendum repealing the ordinance. I can imagine ways to
achieve that result without a referendum, and with or without the agreement
of Phil, Jess and Kelly's client. You have indentified some of these in
your letter, I think.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carpenter, Tom" <TCarpenter@littlerock.state.ar.us>
To: <nate@wecc-law.com>; <gary@wecc-law.com>; <psa@williamsanderson.com>;
<jaskew@williamsanderson.com>; <kterry@williamsanderson.com>;
<gitelman@uark.edu>
Cc: "Mann, Bill" <BMann@littlerock.state.ar.us>; "Moore, Bruce"
<BMoore@littlerock.state.ar.us>; "Beck, Steve"
<SBeck@littlerock.state.ar.us>; "Carney, Dana"
<DCarney@littlerock.state.ar.us>; "Turner, Bob"
<bturner@littlerock.state.ar.us>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 3:43 PM
Subject: Summit Mall litigation -- What's next
<<summitltr1.110.doc>>
Dear Group
The attached letter is being sent out by U.S. mail today. Please review and
let me have your thoughts.
Tom
Thomas M. Carpenter
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
500 West Markham, Ste. 310
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
(501) 371-6875 (0)
(501) 371-4675 (F)
r
13
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 02-1337
SUMMIT MALL COMPANY, LLC;
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS,
AND ITS MAYOR AND BOARD OF
DIRECTORS: JIM DAILEY; JOHNNIE
PUGH; WILLIE HINTON; LARRY
LICHTY; MICHAEL KECK; GENEVIEVE
STEWART; DEAN KUMPURIS;
BARBARA GRAVES; JOAN ADCOCK;
BRENDA WYRICK; AND BRAD
CAZORT,
APPELLANTS,
VS.
RUSSELL LEMOND; CAROLYN
PALMER; BARRY VULETICH; ESSIE
BRANNON; HATTIE DANIELS;
WILLIAM F. HYATT; WENDY
RAMSEY; HALL RAMSEY; ERMA
BAYLEY; RONALD TURNER;
RANDALL HUGHES; JAMES JONES;
JOE BUTLER; MILDRED MERRITT;
DELORIS BRANDS; ALFRED COOK,
JR.; MARTHA COOK; ALICE BURKE;
KAREN ROBERTS; KENNETH
ROBERTS; OLENE BROWN; AND
LARRY REYNOLDS,
APPELLEES,
Opinion Delivered DEC 0 4 200,033
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. IJ 2001-2246,
HON. MACKIE M. PIERCE, JUDGE,
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice
Appellants, Summit Mall, LLC, the City of Little Rock (the City), and the Mayor and
Board of Directors of Little Rock (the Board), appeal from the Pulaski County Circuit
Court's final decree and permanent injunction enjoining the City from issuing a building
permit to Summit Mall or taking any other action with respect to City Ordinance No.
18,456.' The appellees, Russell Lemond and the other landowners (landowners), live in some
proximity to the proposed Summit Mall site. They filed suit and were successful in obtaining
the injunction to block the mall's construction.
Summit Mall raises five points on appeal: (1) that the circuit court lacked subject -
matter jurisdiction, because Ordinance No. 18,456 should have been challenged under Ark.
Code Ann. § 14-56-425 (Reel. 1998); (2) that as a matter of law, the landowners did not
have standing to file the complaint below; (3) that the circuit court erred in holding
Ordinance No. 18,456 void; (4) that the circuit court erred in rejecting its defenses of laches
and statute of limitations; and (5) that the circuit court erred in ruling that Ordinance No.
18,456 was subject to referendum under Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution. The
City jointly asserts each point of appeal with the exception that the City believes the
landowners had standing to bring their complaint. We agree with Summit Mall and the City
that the circuit court erred in not concluding that the landowners' lawsuit was barred by
laches. Accordingly, we reverse the final decree and injunction and remand the case.
The pertinent facts are undisputed for the most part. On December 1, 1987, the City's
Board passed Ordinance No. 15,385, which approved a planned unit development and
established a planned commercial district (PCD) for the property now referred to as the
Summit Mall property. At that time, submission of the final development plan or a request
'The underlying suit was filed in Pulaski County Chancery Court. However, during
its course, Amendment 80 of the Arkansas Constitution went into effect, which merged the
courts of law and equity. Hence, we will refer to the trial court as the circuit court.
-2- 02-1337
for extension of time had to occur within one year of the preliminary approval. On October
3, 1988, an attorney for the then -developer of the Summit Mall property, Ronald Mastriana,
wrote David Jones of the City's Planning Department and requested an extension of time to
file the final plan. Whether he asked for a one-year extension or a three-year extension and
from what starting point that extension was to begin are matters of dispute in this case. On
November 1, 1988, the Board passed Ordinance No. 15,571, which amended the time period
from one year to three years in which PCD developers, including the Summit Mall developer,
had to submit a final plan or a request for extension of time to do so.
On January 8, 1991, Patrick McGetrick, writing on behalf of the then -developer of
the Summit Mall property, submitted a letter to Jim Lawson, Director of the City's
Department of Planning and Development, and requested a three-year extension in which
to submit a final plan. On February 12, 1991, that extension was approved by the City's
Planning Commission. A second three-year extension was requested by Mr. McGetrick on
October 25, 1993, and on January 4, 1994, that extension was also approved by the City's
Planning Commission. On February 22, 1995, Summit Mall purchased approximately 97
acres in west Little Rock for the proposed mall from the prior developer.
The City Planning Commission denied Summit Mall another extension of time to file
its final plan, but on March 18, 1997, the City Board passed Ordinance No. 17,423, which
permitted a three-year extension to Summit Mall in which to file the final plan for the mall.
Almost two -and -one-half years later, in a letter dated November 15, 1999, Summit Mall
submitted the final plan for review and stated that it was "a revision for an earlier approved
similar project." After several deferrals in considering Summit Mall's PCD, the City's
-3- 02-1337
Planning Commission voted to approve Summit Mall's PCD revision on September 14, 2000.
After three readings of the proposed ordinance granting the requested revision, including new
special conditions, and public comment both for and against the request, the Board passed
Ordinance No. 18,456 on April 3, 2001.
On May 2, 2001, the appellee landowners from west Little Rock filed their complaint
against the City and challenged the Board's approval of Ordinance No. 18,456. Their
complaint stated that the site plan for the proposed development approved preliminarily in
1987 by Ordinance No. 15,385 "included a 975,000 square foot shopping mall, three office
buildings totaling 335,000 square feet, a hotel with 190,000 square feet, and two restaurant
parcels totaling 20,000 square feet." The ordinance reclassified the zoning for ninety-seven
acres of property adjacent to Interstate 430 and Shackleford Road in west Little Rock from
office/residential to a PCD. The landowners sought an injunction prohibiting the City from
issuing any building permits or taking any other action to implement the ordinance. They
further sought a declaration that the Board's April 3, 2001 decision passing Ordinance No.
18,456 to establish a revised planned commercial district was arbitrary, capricious,
unreasonable, and an abuse of discretion, and that the Board's approval of Summit Mall
constituted "spot zoning" which was not in conformity with the City's applicable ordinances,
Arkansas case law, or federal and state constitutional guarantees.
The City answered, generally denied the landowners' allegations, and pled the
affirmative defenses of failure to state facts upon which relief could be granted under Ark. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6), laches, waiver, and estoppel. The City further asserted that the landowners
were required to proceed under 5 14-56-425 and, thus, the chancery court was without
-4- 02-1337
subject -matter jurisdiction. The City added that an ordinance like the one at issue is not a
proper subject for referendum under Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution.
On June 4, 2001, Summit Mall moved to intervene. The circuit court granted
Summit Mall's intervention in the case. That same day, Summit Mall moved to dismiss the
complaint for lack of subject -matter jurisdiction on the basis that the chancery court (now
circuit court) had no jurisdiction over claims for which there is an adequate remedy at law
under j 14-56-425. Summit Mall also answered the complaint and cross -claimed against the
City. It too asserted the defenses of lack of subject -matter jurisdiction, laches, estoppel,
waiver, and statute of limitations. Summit Mall further contended that prior to its purchase
of the 97 -acre tract in 1995, the City represented to it that the property was zoned as a PCD
and that the intended development of the property was permissible under this zoning.
Summit Mall asserted that it had relied on these representations in purchasing the property
and prayed that the circuit court enter a declaratory judgment declaring that its right to
develop the property as a regional shopping mall was an interest protected by the due process
and takings clauses of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions.
The City next filed a counterclaim against the landowners and acknowledged that
sufficient referendum petitions regarding Ordinance No. 18,456 had been filed. The City
requested a declaratory judgment that the zoning issue was administrative and not subject to
a referendum under Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution. The landowners answered
and asked for a declaration that the signatures on the referendum petitions were valid. They
further prayed that the circuit court order the City to hold a referendum election.
On August 29, 2001, the circuit court issued a letter opinion, followed by entry of an
-5- 02-1337
order, in which it denied Summit Mall's motion to dismiss for lack of subject -matter
jurisdiction. Summit Mall next moved for summary judgment based on the landowners' lack
of standing. Summit Mall also moved for summary judgment on the merits of the
landowners' claims and filed a separate summaryjudgment motion on the referendum
question. The landowners later cross -motioned for summary judgment.
On February 12, 2002, the circuit court entered an order which granted the City's
motion to dismiss Summit Mall's, cross-claim against it; granted several of the landowners'
motions for non -suit and dismissed those claims without prejudice; denied Summit Mall's
summaryjudgment motions on the issues of standing, the merits, and the referendum
question; and denied the landowners' cross-motion for summary judgment on the merits and
on the referendum.
Prior to trial, the parties agreed to a stipulation of facts. This was followed by a three-
day trial. On June 5, 2002, the circuit court issued a letter opinion, which read in part:
The City and Summit have raised equitable arguments of laches and estoppel
against the Plaintiffs. Neither laches nor estoppel is applicable in this case. No
amount of time would make the invalid ordinances passed since the expiration
of Ordinance No. 15,385 valid. Neither the City nor Summit have relied on
any actions or inactions of the Plaintiffs. The City and Summit have not
changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on action or inaction of
the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have not sat silent while the City and Summit acted.
Plaintiffs have voiced objections to this mall project and opposed the ordinance
that attempted to amend the original Summit Mall Ordinance. Summit can
show no harm or detriment as a result of anything any of these Plaintiffs said or
did. All citizens and residents of the City of Little Rock have an expectation
and a right that the City will properly follow and enforce its code and zoning
ordinances. Just because the City failed to do what it should have done is not
a basis for this court to reward the City's improper conduct. It would be
inherently unfair to apply either of these equitable defenses in this case.
The action of the Little Rock City Board of Directors in enacting Ordinance
. 6- 02-1337
No. 18,456 on April 3, 2001, was not in conformity with [the] City's prior
ordinances. The City of Little Rock is hereby permanently enjoined and
restrained from issuing any building permit to Intervenors or taking any other
action pursuant to Ordinance No. 18,456 regarding the property in question.
The final issue to be addressed by this court is now moot in light of the court's
ruling on Count I, but the court feels compelled to address it anyway. The
final question is whether the modification and amendment of a previously
approved ordinance to create the Sumnut Mall PCD is an administrative or
legislative action. If it is legislative, the action is subject to the referendum
provisions of Amendment 7 of the Arkansas Constitution. If the action is
administrative in nature, it is not subject to Amendment 7. This court has
previously ruled that the passage of Ordinance No. 18,456 on April 3, 2001,
was a legislative action and therefore subject to the provisions of Amendment
7. That is still the opinion of this court today.
This Ordinance No. 18,456 was not a minor revision of the Original Summit
Mall Ordinance, but a major, wholesale revision of the original plan. ... The
evidence in this case reflects that the City's actions were more than merely
administrative in nature, they were clearly legislative in nature.
On July 9, 2002, the circuit court issued a second letter opinion expanding on its reason for
issuing the injunction and ruled on Summit Mall's statute -of -limitations argument:
The court has previously ruled that Ordinance No. 15,385 expired on
December 1, 1990, due to no timely extension request being made by the
developer. Mr. McGetrick's request for extension ofJanuary 8, 1991, was not
timely. All subsequent ordinances granting additional time extensions, as well
as Ordinance No. 18,456 are invalid. No amount of time will make the
subsequent ordinances enacted by the City valid.
The Plaintiffs filed a timely lawsuit challenging Ordinance No. 18,456 which
purported to amend Ordinance No. 15,385. In the years following the
expiration of Ordinance No. 15,385, the City violated its own ordinances by
granting time extensions to Summit when it had no authority to do so. The
statute of limitations defense raised by Intervenors is not applicable to this
lawsuit.
On July 17, 2002, the circuit court entered its final decree and permanent injunction in which
-7- 02-1337
it set aside Ordinance No. 18,456 and enjoined the city from issuing a building permit to
Summit Mall.
L Subject -Matter Jurisdiction
Summit Mall first argues that under this court's decision in Camden Cmty. Dev. Corp.
V. Sutton, 339 Ark. 368, 5 S.W.3d 439 (1999), a city council's rezoning decision is an
administrative action. Summit Mall further claims that Ordinance No. 18,456, was an
administrative action under the rationale we employed in Camden, not a legislative action,
and, thus, should have been challenged under the process set out in § 14-56-425 for
challenging administrative acts. Summit Mall contends that even after the adoption of
Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution, which merged courts of law and equity, the
landowners' complaint was barred, because it was not filed in the circuit court within thirty
days of the challenged action. Summit Mall concludes that the trial court should have
dismissed the complaint for lack of subject -matter jurisdiction.
The City agrees with Summit Mall that in Camden, we held that zoning decisions are
to be reviewed as administrative actions and that § 14-56-425 mandates an appeal to circuit
court as a matter oflaw. Thus, according to the City, an adequate remedy at law existed, and
a court of equity had no subject -matter jurisdiction in the instant case. The City further
contends that because there are permits and other matters to be obtained before final plan
approval, the landowners' appeal was premature. The landowners respond that this court has
long held that rezoning is a legislative action and that Summit Mall's and the City's
jurisdictional challenge is based upon a flawed reading of Camden.
-8- 02-1337
We agree with the landowners. In Camden, the appellant had sought rezoning of its
property from the Camden Planning Commission when a comprehensive zoning plan was
already in effect. The Planning Commission recommended the appellant's proposal to
Camden's City Board, but the Board declined to approve the proposed rezoning. The
appellant subsequently sought to have the matter certified and placed on the ballot for a vote
of the people at the November 1998 general election. The appellees, who were members of
the community opposed to the proposed rezoning, sought to remove the initiative from the
ballot. The circuit court ruled that issues concerning whether to rezone are administrative
decisions not subject to the initiative process. On appeal, this court examined whether the
action taken by the Planning Commission and City Board were legislative or administrative
actions, since an initiative action may only be used to address legislative actions when a
comprehensive zoning plan was already in effect. We held:
... Specifically, we have determined that the facts of this case do not reflect the
occurrence of any legislative action by the City Board. First, we note that the
Commission, which receives its power from the City Board and functions
solely as an administrative body without the power to pass legislation, was
acting within its administrative authority when it recommended the rezoning
proposal to the City Board. Next, we note that the City Board's decision to
not accept the Commission's administrative proposal was only a rejection of
proposed administrative action and did not constitute any legislative action or
administrative action by the City Board....
339 Ark. at 373, 5 S.W.3d at 442 (emphasis added). Moreover, we observed that the
amendment of such a plan as was in place, such as the zoning sought by the appellant, would
require the city to comply with certain statutory requirements. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 14-
56-423 — 424 (Repl. 1998). This court affirmed the circuit court's holding that because
neither the Planning Commission nor the City Board took legislative action with respect to
-9- 02-1337
the existing comprehensive zoning plan, the decision of the Board not to rezone was not
subject to an initiated petition under Amendment 7.
The Camden case is clearly distinguishable from the facts of the instant case. In
Camden, no action was taken by the City Board. Because the City Board failed to pass any
ordinance, it obviously did not act legislatively. As this court said in the Camden opinion, the
City Board merely rejected a proposed action ofthe Planning Conunission. The same cannot
be said for the events that took place in the case before us.
Here, by enacting Ordinance No. 18,456 in 2001, the Board not only approved the
recommended action of the Planning Commission and amended Ordinance No. 15,385 to
modify the PCD, but it rezoned the subject property and added new, special conditions to
accommodate the rezoning. By enacting the ordinance, the Board took legislative action
which is a power delegated to it by the General Assembly under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-402
(Repl. 1998) ("Cities of the first and second class and incorporated towns shall have the power
to adopt and enforce plans for the coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the
municipality and its environs."). See also Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-416(a)(1) (Repl. 1998)
("Following adoption and filing of the land use plan, the [planning] commission may prepare
for submission to the legislative body a recommended zoning ordinance for the entire area of
the municipality." (Emphasis added.)).
This court has routinely held that when a municipality acts in a legislative capacity, it
exercises a power conferred upon it by the General Assembly. See City of Lowell v. M & N
Mobile Home Park, Inc., 323 Ark. 332, 916 S.W.2d 95 (1996). As a consequence, a legislative
act of a municipality equates to an act by the General Assembly. See id. We have further
-10- 02-1337
stated that the test for determining whether a resolution or ordinance of a municipality is
legislation is whether the proposition is one that makes new law or, rather, executes a law
already in existence. See Gregg v. Hartwick, 292 Ark. 528, 731 S.W.2d 766 (1987); Greenlee
v. Munn, 262 Ark. 663, 559 S.W.2d 928 (1978).
In the instant case, the Board's action in enacting Ordinance No. 18,456 was clearly
legislative. Not only did it revise the 1987 ordinance and the preliminary approval of the
PCD, but it added new, special conditions respecting lighting, curbs, sidewalks, a perimeter
ring around the site, security fencing around Camp Aldersgate, a widening of Shackleford
Road, and other actions to improve the infrastructure of the impacted area. This was not
merely zoning in conformity with a previously adopted land -use development plan, but a
comprehensive zoning effort which included numerous new requirements with future
ramifications. See Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 82 Ohio St. 3d 539,
697 N.E.2d 181 (1998). Accordingly, because the action was not administrative, the
landowners were not required to proceed under § 14-56-425. We hold that the circuit court,
sitting as a court of equity, had subject -matter jurisdiction.
H. Standing
Summit Mall next argues that, as a matter of law, the landowners did not have
standing, because they only presented evidence of general injuries and inconveniences shared
by the general public rather than injuries peculiar to themselves. Summit Mall contends that
the landowners' only assertions of injury relate to increases in traffic, loss of greenery, and
possible loss of value to their land. It maintains, in essence, that the landowners lack any
-11- 02-1337
personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit.
We repeat that the City does not join Summit Mall in arguing this point. The City
agrees that the landowners had standing to file suit due to the fact that this case deals with the
City's largest single commercial development which has the potential to affect the entire west
Little Rock area.
Again, we conclude that Summit Mall's argument is misplaced and is based on a flawed
reading of our case law. For its authority on standing, Sumtnit Mall relies on cases which deal
with vacating or closing city streets. It is true that in challenges to that type of city action, this
court has held that a plaintiffmust have sustained a special and peculiar injury or damage. See,
e.g., Freeze v. Jones, 260 Ark. 193, 197, 539 S.W.2d 425, 428 (1976) ("Relief is available to
those who suffer special and peculiar injury or damage, but this special injury or damage must
be such as is not common to the public in general and not just a matter of general public
inconvenience."); City of Little Rock v. Linn, 245 Ark. 260, 274, 432 S.W.2d 455, 464 (1968)
("It has long been recognized, however, that relief against the closing of a public way may be
given to those who suffer special and peculiar injury distinct from that of the public in
general. ... [The injury] must be one which is different in character and not degree from
that which every citizen suffers, whose business or pleasure causes him to travel the way.").
Despite this line of cases, this court has never extended this standing test to individuals who
challenge ordinary zoning or rezoning ordinances.
A case in point is Mings v. City of Fort Smith, 288 Ark. 42, 701 S.W.2d 705 (1986).
In Mings, a landowner (Dr. Mings) challenged the Fort Smith Board of Directors' grant of
permission to St. Edward Mercy Medical Center to use its parking lot which was constructed
-12- 02-1337
in a buffer zone next to Dr. Mings's vacant lot. The City's planning commission had denied
the hospital's request to reopen the parking lot. In determining whether the appeal was
brought before the Board by an "interested parry" under the City's zoning ordinance, which
provided for appeals on zoning matters, the court noted that it was brought by Mr. Faulkner,
a property owner who owned property in the neighborhood "some six blocks away and who
had appeared before the planning commission and spoken in favor of allowing the parking
lot to be used." 288 Ark. at 47, 701 S.W.2d at 707. This court said:
... It should be realized in our time, however, that we are not dealing with
the typical adversary proceeding, and our role should be to defer whenever
possible to the legislative function of the city board in zoning disputes. See
M. Gitelman, Judicial Review of Zoning in Arkansas, 23 Ark. L. Rev. 22 (1969).
That same deference should be given with respect to the question of
standing. Again, we should recognize we are not dealing with a typical
adversary proceeding. See J. Ayer, The Primitive Law of Standing in Land Use
Disputes: Some Notes from a Dark Continent, 55 Iowa L. Rev. 344 (1969). Mr.
Faulkner lived in the neighborhood, used the jogging trail, and participated in
the first planning commission hearing as a proponent of the parking lot. There
was evidence that parking had become a problem because the public was being
allowed unrestricted use of the jogging trail. While we need not address here
the question whether any member of the public would have standing as an
"interested parry," we can not conclude that Mr. Faulkner had no such
standing in these circumstances.
Id. at 47-49, 701 S.W.2d at 708. While the Mings case dealt with standing under a Fort
Smith ordinance setting out the procedure for bringing appeals by "interested parties," it is
telling that this court chose not to extend the strict requirements for standing which it had
previously imposed in cases dealing with the closure or abandonment of a street.
In the case at hand, four of the appellee landowners testified before the circuit court.
Hall Ramsey, a resident of the Sandpiper subdivision in west Little Rock since about 1991,
-13- 02-1337
testified that his home is located less than a half mile from the Summit Mall property. He
stated that he was personally opposed to the development of the property because it would
make traffic worse in the area. He also worried that his property value would decrease
because of traffic problems and that there was the potential for pollution. Carolyn Palmer,
another landowner, testified that she resides in the John Barrow Addition and often shops
in the "Chenal and Bowman area." She testified that she opposed the development of
Summit Mall because it would cause traffic congestion in that area and the development
would further cause a loss of trees on the property. Barry Vuletich testified as a landowner
and stated that he lives approximately 1.4 miles from the site of the proposed mall and has
since 1988. He cited traffic congestion, both during and after construction, the loss of"green
space," and the effect the development will have on air and sound pollution as reasons he
opposed the development. Finally, William Hyatt testified that he too is a resident of the
Sandpiper subdivision and that his home is probably a quarter of a mile or less from the
proposed Summit Mall site. His specific objections to the mall are traffic and the potential
for loss to the value of his home.
In sum, several of the landowners testified that they were concerned they specifically
would be adversely affected by the Summit Mall development with respect to property
values, loss of green space, air and noise pollution, and traffic congestion. We are hard
pressed, under these facts, to conclude that these landowners do not have standing to
challenge the rezoning of a large tract of property located in their area, which has the
potential to adversely impact their lives. See, e.g., Van Renselaar v. City, of Sprinyteld, 58 Mass.
-14- 02-1337
App. Ct. 104, 107, 787 N.E.2d 1148, 1151 (2003) ("We decide that, for purposes of their
standing to challenge local legislation that adopts or amends a zoning ordinance or by-law,
it is sufficient for these plaintiffs to have established that they will suffer an adverse impact
from the legislative zoning action, without establishing, in addition, that their injury is special
and different from the concerns of the rest of the community."). An adverse impact, which
is the general test for standing, appears to us to be the appropriate test for standing in this
matter. See David Newbern & John J. Watkins, Arkansas Civil Practice and Procedure § 5-13
(3d ed. 2002). We decline to dismiss this matter for lack of standing.
III. Laches
Summit Mall contends that it should have prevailed in circuit court on its defense of
laches and that by ruling against it on this point, the circuit court created an infinite and
timeless right to challenge zoning ordinances. It maintains that the landowners essentially sat
silent for more than ten years, during which time the company detrimentally relied. on the
City's preliminary PCD zoning for the property in 1987 by purchasing the property for the
regional shopping mall in 1995. The City agrees with Surmnit Mall's laches argument and
adds that the question of whether the 1987 ordinance had expired was never raised by the
landowners to the City Board or City Planning Commission. Indeed, the City emphasizes
that the argument was not made until suit was filed in 2001. The City specifically claims that
the landowners "slept upon their rights" for four years after the Board expressly extended the
time for Summit Mall to file its final plan in 1997 by Ordinance No. 17,423.
-15- 02-1337
The landowners respond that they filed suit within thirty days of the City's "flawed
enactment" of the 2001 ordinance. They contend that the 1987 ordinance, Ordinance No.
15,385, is not at issue. Rather, the ordinance passed in 2001, Ordinance No. 18,456, is the
ordinance in question. They further assert that the circuit court correctly found no evidence
that Summit Mall or the City relied on anything said or done by the landowners to its
detriment.
In Richards v. Ferguson, 252 Ark. 484, 479 S.W.2d 852 (1972), this court discussed the
application of the doctrine of laches in the context of an attack on a rezoning ordinance. In
Richards, we reversed and dismissed a chancery court decree which set aside an ordinance
rezoning two tracts from single-family residential to apartment and small-business use. The
opponents to the rezoning contested the rezoning before the City Board. We pointed out
that the opponents had waited twenty months after the rezoning to attack the validity of the
ordinance during which time the owner purchased the land. We said:
... A suit such as this one seeks an equitable remedy and is subject to those
defenses, including laches, that are commonly available in such proceedings.
Anderson, American Law of Zoning, § 23.15 (1st ed., 1968). The doctrine of
laches is ordinarily applied to situations in which the complainant has stood
idly by while the other party has materially changed his position.
252 Ark. at 486, 479 S.W.2d at 853. We concluded that after the rezoning, the next move
was up to the opponents. We stated that they failed to act until after the land purchase and
expenditure for development costs. We held that the opponents had "slept upon their
rights" and were precluded from seeking relief.
This court has summarized the laches defense by stating that it is based on the
-16- 02-1337
equitable principle that an unreasonable delay by the parry seeking relief precludes recovery
when the circumstances are such as to make it inequitable or unjust for the party to seek
relief now. See Anadarko Petroleum Co. v. Venable, 312 Ark. 330, 850 S.W.2d 302 (1993).
The laches defense requires a detrimental change in the position of the one asserting the
doctrine, as well as an unreasonable delay by the one asserting his or her rights against whom
laches is invoked. See Worth v. Civil Serv. Comm'n of El Dorado, 294 Ark. 643, 746 S.W.2d
364 (1988). See also Goforth v. Smith, 338 Ark. 65, 991 S.W.2d 579 (1999).
In the instant case, the landowners argue that they were timely in their challenge to
Ordinance No. 18,456 and are challenging the 2001 ordinance—not Ordinance No. 15,385
of 1987. They contend that the, key reason the 2001 ordinance is invalid is because the City
failed to follow its own procedures in granting extensions oftime over the past decade. They
further contend that some landowners have only lived in the area of the proposed mall for
a few years and, thus, are not subject to the defense of laches. We disagree on this last point.
Mr. Ramsay testified that he had lived in the Sandpiper subdivision since about 1991, and
Barry Vuletich testified that he had resided in the area since 1988. It is indisputable that
some of the landowners lived in the area, knew about the proposed development, and could
have lodged their challenge to the failure to extend Ordinance No. 15,385 before Summit
Mall purchased the property in 1995 or before the Board extended the time for filing a final
plan in 1997.
Ordinance No. 18,456 was not the first time the Board amended the original 1987
zoning ordinance. On March 18, 1997, the Board stepped in for the first time on an
-17_ 02-1337
extension and passed Ordinance No. 17,423, which allowed Summit Mall a third three-year
extension and amended Ordinance No. 15,385 for that purpose. Moreover, before the Board
acted in granting the extension, the City Planning Commission had approved two previous
three-year extensions. All of this was public record. Indeed, the record reflects that specific
notices were sent out to the Kensington Place Neighborhood Association and the Sandpiper
Neighborhood Association prior to the City Planning Commission's public hearing on the
requested extension in 1997. Certainly, if the landowners' argument concerning the lack of
a timely request for an extension of Ordinance No. 15,385 by December 1, 1990, is crucial
to their challenge to the 2001 ordinance, it should have been made considerably earlier than
it was.
Summit Mall unquestionably relied on these uncontested extensions as evidenced by
its purchase of the land in 1995 for six -and -a -quarter million dollars and its incurred expenses
thereafter for development of the mall. Roderick Vosper, Regional Vice -President of New
Development with Simon Property Group, testified that exclusive of litigation expense,
Summit Mall had incurred expenses in the amount of $576,000. Clearly, had the landowners
filed their complaint in 1991, when they claim the City erroneously extended the time for
submission of the final plan, rather than waiting until 2001, and been successful, Summit Mall
would not have purchased the land in 1995 for six -and -a -quarter million dollars or incurred
$576,000 worth of development expenses. Indeed, had the landowners filed suit prior to
1995, the sale undoubtedly would have been stalled. If they had filed suit in 1997, after the
Board itself gave Summit Mall a three-year extension, Summit Mall could have saved
-18- 02-1337
considerable development expenses.
The landowners contend that they are not contesting events that occurred in 1990 or
1991 relating to a timely extension request, but are only contesting passage of Ordinance No.
18,456 in 2001. Yet, the very foundation of their argument is that the City granted an
extension of time in 1991, when it had no authority to do so. Thereafter, all actions of the
City and Board pertaining to Summit Mall were invalid and void, the landowners contend,
and the circuit court agreed. It is clear to this court that even under their theory of the case,
the landowners' cause of action accrued as early as February 12, 1991, the date the City first
extended the time for filing a final plan.
Because the landowners could have filed suit as early as February 1991 and failed to
do so until 2001, Summit Mall bought the mall property and expended a sizeable amount of
funds in 1995 and thereafter which it would not have spent had the landowners not sat on
their rights. We hold that the circuit court erred in ruling against Summit Mall and the City
on their defense of laches.
IV. Referendum
Summit Mall next contends that should this court reverse the circuit court's ruling,
which voided Ordinance No. 18,456, the ordinance would then be subject to a referendum.
Summit Mall urges once more, under this point, that because the Board's rezoning decision
is an administrative one, it is not subject to a referendum under Amendment 7 of the Arkansas
Constitution. Summit Mall further asserts that rezoning by referendum would violate the
-19- 02-1337
general statutory scheme for land -use planning, as enacted by the General Assembly, which
violates the express terms of Amendment 7. The City concurs in this argument and reiterates
that under Camden, supra, zoning decisions are administrative and, thus, are not subject to the
provisions of Amendment 7. The landowners disagree and argue again that Ordinance No.
18,456 was a legislative act by the Board and, as such, is subject to a referendum by the
people. We repeat our holding that Ordinance No. 18,456 was a legislative act by the Board.
Amendment 7 reserves to the residents of municipalities and counties the right of
initiative and referendum. This court has held that the right of referendum is granted to the
people on legislation, of every character, whether the legislation affects all or a part of the
citizens of the municipality affected. See Carpenter v. City of Paragould, 198 Ark. 454, 128
S.W.2d 980 (1939). To that end, only legislative action is subject to referendum. See e.g.,
Lawrence v. Jones, 228 Ark. 1136, 313 S.W.2d 228 (1958). The decisions of city officials in
certain zoning matters are legislative in nature since the state legislature has delegated the
power of comprehensive planning in classifying the various areas of the city into proper zones
or classifications. See McMinn v. City of Little Rock, 275 Ark. 458, 631 S.W.2d 288 (1982).
However, as this court stated in Scroggins v. Kerr, 217 Ark. 137, 228 S.W.2d 995 (1950), if
there is a law already enacted which authorizes the very action provided for by a later
resolution or ordinance, then there is no right to have a referendum on the new measure. In
other words, only when there is a new law, and not a "procedural device for administering
an old law[,]" is there a right to have a referendum. 217 Ark. at 145, 228 S.W.2d at 999.
In Scroggins, the issue presented was whether Little Rock Ordinance No. 8163, which
authorized execution of a "cooperation agreement" between the City and the federal Public
-20- 02-1337
Housing Administration for the construction of certain low -rent housing projects, could be
subject to a referendum petition under Amendment 7 and submitted to a vote of the people.
Prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8163. on December 19, 1949, the City Board had
adopted Ordinance No. 6010 on October 14, 1940, which authorized a "cooperation
agreement" permitting the mayor to enter into agreements with the local housing authority
for the erection and operation of an unspecified number of low -rent dwellings. This court
found that the City Board's adoption of Ordinance No. 8163 was a legislative act, and we
said:
... There was no previous law which authorized what 8163 declared should
be done. True, no prior law forbade what 8163 authorized, but that is not the
point. The point is that without 8163 there would have been no law in Little
Rock authorizing the execution of a cooperative agreement covering the
particular construction and demolition, and the numerous incidental rights,
privileges and exemptions connected therewith, which 8163 provided for.
Ordinance 6010 was real housing legislation in this sense, since it
authorized a cooperative agreement under which actual construction and
demolition were to be carried out. But 6010 did not authorize the cooperative
agreement that 8163 calls for, nor gives any authority for the construction and
demolition that would be carried out under 8163. On that, it is enough to
remember that 6010 included the express limitation that the number of"unsafe
or insanitary dwelling units" to be eliminated under its authority should in no
event exceed 300, whereas 8163 authorizes approximately 1000 such
eliminations to correspond with the same number of new dwellings. A careful
reading of 8163 shows without question that it provides for new and different
housing projects, apart from and in addition to those authorized by 6010.
What is to be done under 8163 could not be done under 6010. Ordinance
8163 is a new law, and not a mere procedural device for administering some
previous enactment....
217 Ark. at 145-46, 228 S.W.2d at 999-1000. Ordinance No. 18,456 goes far beyond
administrative zoning in accordance with a land -use plan. It is new legislation with future
-21- 02-1337
ramifications. We conclude that, as a legislative matter, Ordinance No. 18,456 is subject to
a referendum.
In an Agreed Stipulation of Facts entered into by all of the parties in this matter prior
to trial, the parties agreed to these facts:
29. After the passage of Ordinance No. 18,456, various people
circulated petitions to refer Ordinance No. 18, 456 to the voters for an election
pursuant to Amendment 7 to the Arkansas Constitution. These petitions were
tendered to the Little Rock City Clerk on May 2, 2001.
30. Little Rock City Clerk Nancy Wood determined that the
petitions submitted to her office seeking to refer Little Rock Ordinance 18,456
to a referendum contained a sufficient number of valid signatures in order to
refer the ordinance to a vote, assuming a referendum on this ordinance is
permissible under Arkansas law. There was no evidence of fraud.
The question for the court to resolve is whether this stipulation by the parties renders the
referendum issue ripe for our review so that we can order a referendum, as the landowners
requested before the circuit court. We conclude that it does not.
The circuit court concluded that the referendum issue was moot in light of its decision
on the merits in favor of the landowners. The court then went on to address the referendum
issue anyway, in what was clearly an advisory opinion, and found that the Board's passage of
Ordinance No. 18,456 was legislative action. Despite the Agreed Stipulation of Facts, the
court did not rule on the landowners' prayer for an order directing the City to schedule a
referendum election. Accordingly, whether a referendum election should be approved is not
an issue before this court on appeal. See Trinity Universal Ins. Co. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co., 246 Ark. 1021, 441 S.W.2d 95 (1969).
We remand because the status of the referendum is difficult to determine from the
-22- 02-1337
record before us. All we appear to have at hand is an affidavit from the City Clerk that the
signature petitions contain a sufficient number of valid signatures, the Agreed Stipulation of
Facts by the parties, and the landowners' prayer for the circuit court to call a referendum
election. Whether the landowners desire to pursue a referendum election as part of this suit
or in separate litigation remains to be seen. Suffice it to say that the sufficiency of the
referendum petitions is not an issue before this court in this appeal.
Because we reverse on the basis that the landowners' complaint was barred by laches,
we need not address the other issues raised by Summit Mall and the City.
Reversed and remanded.
IMBER, J., concurs.
-23- 02-1337
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 02-1337
SUMMIT MALL COMPANY, LLC; CITY
OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AND
ITS MAYOR AND BOARD OF
DIRECTORS: JIM DAILEY; JOHNNIE
PUGH; WILLIE HINTON; LARRY
LICHTY; MICHAEL KECK; GENEVIEVE
STEWART; DEAN KUMPURIS;
BARBARA GRAVES; JOAN ADCOCK;
BRENDA WYRICK; AND BRAD
CAZORT,
APPELLANTS
VS.
RUSSELL LEMOND; CAROLYN
PALMER; BARRY VULETICH; ESSIE
BRANNON; HATTIE DANIELS;
WILLIAM F. HYATT; WENDY
RAMSEY; HALL RAMSEY; ERMA
BAYLEY; RONALD TURNER;
RANDALL HUGHES; JAMES JONES;
JOE BUTLER; MILDRED MERRITT;
DELORIS BRANDS; ALFRED COOK,
JR.; MARTHA COOK; ALICE BURKE;
KAREN ROBERTS; KENNETH
ROBERTS; OLENE BROWN; AND
LARRY REYNOLDS,
APPELLEES
Opinion Delivered DEC 0 4 2093
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
NO. IJ 2001-2246
HON. MACKIE M. PIERCE, JUDGE
CONCURRING.
ANNABELLE CLINTON IMBER, Associate Justice
I agree that this case should be reversed and remanded. However, I cannot subscribe
to the majority's effort to distinguish this court's decision in Camden Cmty. Dev. Corp. v.
Sutton, 339 Ark. 368, 5 S.W.3d 439 (1999). Specifically, this court will henceforth determine
whether a zoning proposal is legislative or administrative in nature by looking at whether the
city board passed or rejected the proposal. Additionally, I do not agree with the majority's
implication that the landowners's cause of action accrued as early as February 12, 1991, when
the City Planning Commission granted Summit Mall additional time to file a final plan.
Rezoning — Legislative Proposal
In Camden Community Dev. Corp. v. Sutton, 339 Ark. 368, 5 S.W.3d 439 (1999), a
majority of this court held that a rezoning proposal was not legislative in nature. Thus, the
court held that the proposal was not subject to the initiative process under Amendment 7 of
the Arkansas Constitution. In that case, the Camden Community Development Corporation
sought permission to rezone its property. Id. The City of Camden's Planning Commission
recommended the proposal, but it ultimately failed to be adopted by the City Board. Id. The
appellant in Camden then managed to get its petition to rezone on the general election ballot.
Id. A trial court ruled that the "issues concerning whether to rezone are administrative
decisions, not legislative, and thus are not subject to the initiative process." Id. A majority
of this court affirmed that ruling. Id.
The majority holding in Camden was stated as follows:
Specifically, we have determined that the facts of this case do not reflect the
occurrence of any legislative action by the City Board ... [T]he City Board's
decision to not accept the Commission's administrative proposal was only a
rejection of the proposed administrative action and did not constitute any
legislative action or administrative action by the City Board.
-2- 02-1337
Camden v. Sutton, 339 Ark. at 373, 5 S.W.3d at 442. Moreover, the majority labeled the
planning commission's recommendation to rezone as a "proposed administrative action." Id.
The court's opinion noted the decision in Wenderoth v. City of Fort Smith, 251 Ark. 342, 472
S.W.2d 74 (1971), in which we concluded that zoning ordinances were legislative in nature,
and overruled Wenderoth to the extent that it was inconsistent with the majority opinion.
Camden v. Sutton, supra.
I reiterate the thrust of my dissenting opinion in Camden: The majority erred in
holding that a rezoning proposal rejected by the City Board is not legislative in nature. The
fallacy in such a holding is particularly apparent in light of our holding in City of Lowell v. M
& N Mobile Home Park, Inc., 323 Ark. 332, 916 S.W.2d 95 (1996), where the city council
denied a zoning request that was not recommended by the planning commission.
Nonetheless, we stated that "[i]n recent years, we have frequently written that the judicial
branch does not have the authority to review zoning legislation de novo, as that would
constitute an unconstitutional taking of the power of the legislative branch." Lowell v. Mobile
Home, supra. The Camden holding is even more remarkable in view of our recent statement
in Murphy v. City of West Memphis, Ark._, 101 S.W.3d 221 (2003), that zoning
ordinances are legislative enactments. In fact, it is well-settled that zoning ordinances are as
a general matter legislative actions. See Murphy v. City of West Memphis, supra; Lowell v. Mobile
Home, supra; City of Little Rock v. Breeding, 273 Ark. 437, 619 S.W.2d 664 (1981); City of
Conway v. Housing Authority, 266 Ark. 404, 584 S.W.2d 10 (1979). It necessarily follows that
a recommendation to rezone is a recommendation to take legislative action.
-3- 02-1337
Turning now to the dichotomy created by the majority's attempt to distinguish
Camden from the case at bar, the majority hinges its distinction upon whether a city board
rejects or adopts a rezoning proposal. The majority also asserts that the facts in the Camden
case are different. The only factual difference, however, between Camden and the instant case
is that in Camden the City Board rejected the rezoning proposal recommended by the
planning commission; whereas, in this case the City Board passed a rezoning proposal
recommended by the planning commission. In both cases, the proposed zoning ordinances
were properly before the City Boards pursuant to Ark. Code. Ann. § 14-56-422 (Repl.
1998). The majority opinion illuminates the grave error made by the Camden court; that is,
Camden erroneously focused on the action taken by the City Board, as opposed to the nature
of the proposal at issue. Moreover, the majority now compounds the error of law made in
Camden.
Today this court has effectively bifurcated the people's power under Amendment 7 to
the Arkansas Constitution. Amendment 7 reserves the people's initiative and referendum
powers to the local voters of each municipality and county "as to all local, special and
municipal legislation of every character in and for their respective municipalities and counties,
but no local legislation shall be enacted contrary to the Constitution or any general law of the
State." According to the majority opinion in this case and in Camden, the people reserve the
right to refer a rezoning ordinance enacted by the City Board, but do not reserve the power
to initiate a rezoning ordinance. Amendment 7 does not support such a distinction. We have
long held that Amendment 7 is to be liberally construed in order that its purposes may be
-4- 02-1337
effected. Greg v. Hartwick, 292 Ark. 528, 731 S.W.2d 766 (1987); Leigh & Thomas v. Hall,
232 Ark. 558, 339 S.W.2d 504 (1960). Allowing rezoning to be subject to a referendum but
not to an initiative process narrowly construes and distorts the powers granted in Amendment
7.
In sum, I believe that the majority opinion, in its valiant effort to distinguish Camden
from the case at bar, improperly separates the initiative and referendum powers reserved to
the people under Amendment 7. The plain language of Amendment 7 makes no such
distinction. The legislative nature of a rezoning proposal is static; it does not change upon a
vote by the legislative body. The Camden majority held that a rezoning proposal was not
subject to the initiative process under Amendment 7. Thus, if we are to remain faithful to
the Camden decision, the rezoning issue here should not be subject to a referendum under
Amendment 7.
In concurring today, I merely reiterate my dissent in Camden. Rezoning is legislative
in nature and subject to the people's initiative and referendum powers under Amendment 7
to the Arkansas Constitution. Because the instant case and Camden are factually
indistinguishable, I believe this court should acknowledge its mistake and overrule that
decision.
Laches
In holding that the landowners' complaint is barred by the doctrine of laches, the
majority opinion relies primarily on our decision in Richards v. Ferguson, 252 Ark. 484, 479
S.W.2d 852 (1972). In that case, we applied the doctrine of laches based on a failure to timely
-5- 02-1337
V attack a rezoning ordinance. In this case, the majority ties laches to a time extension approved
by the City Planning Commission on February 12, 1991. While I agree that the time
extension was a matter of public record, it is unnecessary to hold that the landowners's cause
of action accrued upon the City Planning Commission's approval of a time extension because
the landowners waited four years from the City Board's enactment of an ordinance permitting
a three-year time extension. In my view, the doctrine of laches precludes the landowners
from seeking relief because they "slept upon their rights" after the City Board expressly
extended the time for Summit Mall to file its final plan by the enactment in 1997 of
Ordinance No. 17,423.
-6- 02-1337
Et
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
January 12, 2004
Roderick C. Vosper
Regional Vice President — Development
Summit Mall Company, LLC and
Construction Developers, Inc.
c/o Simon Development Group
115 West Washington Street
P.O. Box 7033
Indianapolis, IN 46207
Dear Mr. Vosper:
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
On April 3, 2001, Ordinance No. 18,456 was adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors
establishing a Planned Zoning Development titled Summit Mall — Revised PCD referenced as
File No. Z -4923-A and located at the southwest comer of Shackleford Road and Interstate 430.
Section 36-454(e) of the Code of Ordinances allows the applicant three (3) years from the date of
passage of the ordinance approving the preliminary development plan to submit the final
development plan.
Section 36-454(e) of the Code of Ordinances was amended by Ordinance No. 18,863 dated May
6, 2003, which states requests for extensions of time shall be submitted in writing to the Planning
Commission not less than ninety days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission
may grant one extension of not more than two (2) years.
Since the Summit Mall — Revised PCD was approved prior to the adoption of Ordinance No.
18,863 you will have until January 23, 2004 to submit a letter requesting a time extension.
Failure to request and file a time extension maybe cause for revocation of the previous approval.
Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions or
require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact Dana Carney or Donna James
of our staff at (501) 371-4790.
Respectfully,
Steve Beck
Acting Director of Planning Director
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1 334
Phone: (501) 371.4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 Subdivision
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
TO: Sandier Neighborhood Association
ATTENTION: Ms. Barbara McGraw
ADDRESS: P.O. Box 22912
tle Rock. AR 72211
REQUEST: Summit Mall Revised Long -form PCD Time Extension Request LZ -4923-
A) -- A request to allow addition time for submission of the final development Oan far
this site.
GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: located at the southwest corner of Shackleford
Road and
•
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for a Planned Unit Development
of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development.
A public hearing will be held by the L.R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors
Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on March 11, 2004 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is
provided in order to assure that neighborhood associations are aware of issues that may
affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning staff
at 371-4790.
Steve Beck, Interim Director
ta
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6663
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT
TO: John Barrow Neighborhood A sociation
ATTENTION: Ms. Bet Sn der
ADDRESS: 5700 Freeland
Little Rock, AR 72209
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
REQUEST: Summit Mall Revised Long -form PCD Time Extension Request Z -4923-
A — A re nest to allow addition time for submission of the final develo meet lan for
this site.
GENERAL LOCATION OR ADDRESS: located at the southwest comer of Shackleford
Road and I-430.
OWNED BY: s
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT an application for a Planned Unit Development
of the above property has been filed with the Department of Planning and Development.
A public hearing will be held by the L.R. Planning Commission in the Board of Directors
Chamber, second floor, City Hall, on March 11, 2004 at 4:00 P.M. This notice is
provided in order to assure that neighborhood associations are aware of issues that may
affect their neighborhood. Information requests should be directed to the Planning staff
at 371-4790.
Steve Beck, Interim Director
WILLIAMS &ANDERSON PLC
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
1 1 1 CENTER STREET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
JESS ASKEW III
jaskew@williamsanderson.com
DIRECT DIAL
(501) 396-8452
January 22, 2004
HAND DELIVERY
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
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:
As you may know, our law firm represents Summit Mall Company, LLC. Summit Mall
Company, LLC has received your letter of January 12, 2004 concerning the referenced matter.
The letter was received in the office of Summit Mall Company, LLC on January 19, 2004.
On behalf of Summit Mall Company, LLC, I hereby request an extension of the
referenced Planned Zoning Development for the maximum amount of time available under the
Code of Ordinances. I understand from visiting with you by telephone today that this letter is the
request for a time extension that is required in this matter on or before January 23, 2004.
I understand that there are no fiuther steps that Summit Mall Company, LLC may take in
connection with this request for extension; once this request for extension is made pursuant to
this letter, the developer is neither permitted nor required to take any additional step in order to
obtain the requested extension. Please confirm the requested extension once it is granted.
I am certain that you understand that the referenced Planned Zoning Development has
been involved in litigation since May 2001, less than 30 days after the referenced Ordinance was
adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors. The litigation is ongoing and is currently pending
on remand to the Pulaski County Circuit Court from the Arkansas Supreme Court.
www.williamsanderson.com
WILLIAMS &ANDERSON PLC
January 22, 2004
Page 2
Please contact me if you have any question or comment concerning this matter. Thank
you very much for your cooperation in this regard.
Cordially yours,
WILLI ANDERSON PLC
tksAskew III
Cc: Chairperson, Little Rock Planning Commission
Thomas M. Carpenter, Esquire
WILLIAMS & ANDERSON PLC
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
1 1 1 CENTER STREET
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201
JESS ASKEW III
jaskew@williamsanderson.com
DIRECT DIAL
(501) 396-8452
January 22, 2004
HAND DELIVERY
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
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:
As you may know, our law firm represents Summit Mall Company, LLC. Summit Mall
Company, LLC has received your letter of January 12, 2004 concerning the referenced matter.
The letter was received in the office of Summit Mall Company, LLC on January 19, 2004.
On behalf of Summit Mall Company, LLC, I hereby request an extension of the
referenced Planned Zoning Development for the maximum amount of time available under the
Code of Ordinances. I understand from visiting with you by telephone today that this letter is the
request for a time extension that is required in this matter on or before January 23, 2004.
I understand that there are no further steps that Summit Mall Company, LLC may take in
connection with this request for extension; once this request for extension is made pursuant to
this letter, the developer is neither permitted nor required to take any additional step in order to
obtain the requested extension. Please confirm the requested extension once it is granted.
I am certain that you understand that the referenced Planned Zoning Development has
been involved in litigation since May 2001, less than 30 days after the referenced Ordinance was
adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors. The litigation is ongoing and is currently pending
on remand to the Pulaski County Circuit Court from the Arkansas Supreme Court.
www.wlUlamsanderson.com
WILLIAMS&ANDERSON PLC
January 22, 2004
Page 2
Please contact me if you have any question or comment concerning this matter. Thank
you very much for your cooperation in this regard.
Cordially yours,
WILL ANDERSON PLC
Jes Askew III
JLA/dkc
Cc: Chairperson, Little Rock Planning Commission
Thomas M. Carpenter, Esquire
11
ORDINANCE NO. 19,057
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL LITTLE ROCK, ARK., ORDINANCE NO.
4 18,456 (APRIL 3,2001); TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
5 THIS ACTION AS IT CONSIDERS A REQUEST TO EXTEND THE TIME
6 FOR THE SUMMIT MALL -REVISED PCD (Z4923 -A); TO DECLARE AN
7 EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
S
9 WHEREAS, the Board passed Little Rock, Ark., Ordinance No. 18,456 ("LRO
10 18,4561") on April 3, 2001, and
11 WHEREAS, subsequent to this action litigation was filed in Pulaski County
12 which ultimately resulted in a decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court which upheld
13 the ordinance but remanded to the Pulaski Circuit Court to determine whether a
14 referendum election on the ordinance must be held, and
15 WHEREAS, prior to a hearing on this referendum issue the law firm of WILLUbAS
16 AND ANDERSON sent a request to the City to extend the Summit Mall -Revised PCD
17 pursuant to Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code § 36-454(e) (1988), and
1s WHEREAS, prior to a hearing on this referendum issue the SIMON PROPERTY
19 GRoup sent notice to the City, and a copy of a press release, which stated that it would
20 not build the development set forth in the preliminary development plan approved in
21 LRO 18,456, and
22 WHEREAS, the Pulaski Circuit Court has issued an order that requires a
23 referendum election on LRO 18,456 by April 18, 2004, if the ordinance is not first
24 repealed, and
25 WHEREAS, acting pursuant to its legislative authority, the February 17, 2004,
26 Order of the Pulaski Circuit Court in Russell Lemond, et al v. City of Little Rock, et al, No. IJ
[PAGE 1 OF 3]
ordinance
Repeal of LRO 18,0.96 (Summit Mall-Revlsed PCD)
1 2001-2246, Pulaski Circuit (171W, and the statements of the SlmoN PROPERTY GROUP that it
2 will not meet the requirements to submit a timely final development plan,
3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
4 OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS -
5 Section 1. Little Rock, Ark., Ordinance No. 18,456 (April 3, 2001) is hereby
6 repealed.
7 Section 2. The City Clerk is directed to deliver a copy of this ordinance to the
S Little Rock Planning Commission so it can take the appropriate action to deny as moot
9 the request for an extension of time to submit a final development plan for the Summit
10 Mall -Revised PCD.
11 Section 4. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item,
12 sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid
13 or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining
14 portions of the ordinance which shall remain u1 full force and effect as if the portion so
15 declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the
16 ordinance.
17 Section 5. Repealer. All ordinances and resolutions inconsistent with the
is provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency.
19 Section 6. Emergency. It is essential to the public health, safety and welfare that the
20 status of the Summit Mall -Revised PCD as approved in Little Rock, Ark., Ordinance No. 18,456
21 (April 1, 2004), be resolved immediately so the City does not have to bear the expenditures
22 required for a special referendum election ordered by the Pulaski Circuit Court in Russell
23 Lemond, et al v. City of Little Rock, et al, No. IJr 2001-2246, Pulaski Circuit (17,11 since the
24 election would be moot because the developer has stated that it will not timely build the
25 development as set forth in the ordinance; therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this
26 ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage.
27 PASSED: February 24, 2004
[PAGE 2 OF 31
Ordinance
Repeal of LAO 10,456 (Summit MPWR&viaed PCD)
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
s
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ATTEST:
N y Woo , City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
tel► �-�+�^-*-�.
Thomas M. Carpenter, City ttorney
1l
II
11
II
11
t!
11
11
11
II
11
1I
II
11
ordinance
Repeal of LRO 15/156 (Summit Mall -Revised FCD)
[PAGE 3 OF 31
APPROVET):
4 L, 1
Dailey, Mayor
(a
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6663
March 15, 2004
Summit Mall Co., LLC
c/o Simon Development Group
115 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Planning
Zoning and
Subdivision
Re: Summit Mall Revised PCD Time Extension Request (Z -4923-A) — located on the Southwest
corner of Shackleford Road and I-430
Dear Sirs:
This is to advise you that in connection with your application Case No. Z -4923-A the following
action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on March 11, 2004:
Approved with conditions.
Recommended approval with conditions.
Recommended approval as submitted.
Denied your request as submitted.
Deferred to
Meeting.
X Other: Withdrew your request from consideration.
If you have any questions Wease do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821._
Respectfully,
Donna James, AICP
Subdivision Administrator
City of Little Rock
uspaRmenI of Planning and DevelopmentPlanning
Zoning and
723 West Markham Subdivision
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
13 (501) 371-4790
FAX OVER SHEET
DATE: �- ��� c L1
TO: M
COMPANY:
FAX NUMBER:
PHONE NUMBER:
FROM: r'K LL.'Vvn c'�— • w S
DIVISION:
FAX NUMBER: (501) 399-3435
PHONE NUMBER: 501 `jj 1,4e Yc -- /
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: L
COMMENTS:
C
O
o.
a
►�
Suggested LuM age for Section to limit the permission granted in this PUD to three (3) years from the
effective date of the ordinance (prepared at the request of Director Lary Lichty).
1 Section _. The zoning modification granted in this ordinance shall only be in full
2 force and effect for a period of three years from the effective date of this ordinance. Before
3 the end of this three year period of time the developer shall be required to obtain approval
4 for a final site development plan, and shall obtain all appropriate building permits, and shall
5 being construction on the commercial structures which constitute The Summit Mall project,
6 or this- ordinance shall automatically expire and the approval and conditions granted' in this
7 ordinance shall be null and void. If such expiration occurs, then this property shall return to
8 the zoning classification in place immediately prior to the approval of Little Rock, Ark.,
9 Ordinance No. 15,385 (December 1, 1987). Further, if such expiration occurs and a request
10 to rezone any or all of the property described in Section 2 of this ordinance is filed, the
11 appropriateness of such rezoning request shall be reviewed only in light of the zoning
12 classification in place immediately prior to the approval of Little Rock, Ark., Ordinance No.
13 15,385 (December 1, 1987).
14
15 //
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29 / /
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
[41] Miniwarehouse;
[42] Mortuary or funeral home;
[43] Multifamily dwellings;
[44] Nursing home or convalescent home;
[45] Office warehouse;
[46] Pawnshop;
[47] Pet Shop (unless fully enclosed or incidental to pet supply retail);
[48] Plant nursery;
[49] Private club with dining or bar service;
[50] Recycling facility, automated;
[51] Seasonal and temporary sales, outside;
[52] Service station (except Parcel A);
[53] Small engine repair 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 and, which
shall include trees at 30 feet on center in the area fronting the bay;
[54] Swimming pool sales and supply;
[55] Taxidermist;
[PAGE 15 OF 171
01WINANCE TO MODIFY MANNW ZONING DEVELOPMENT: SI MOaT MAIL. REVLSED PCD (Zr4923-A)
raST OF P>tomBnFD USES ON FES MM eL TBACIS TO GMP AIDEBSGATE
W51-1.f�: y 61
1
[561
Theater;
2
[571
Tool and equipment rental (with outside display);
3
[581
Upholstery shop, auto;
4
[591
Upholstery shop, fiuniture.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
[PAGE 16 OF 171
Owv;Amm To MODwy PIANNw ZONING DEV`IIAFmiN- : StJmwr MALL Brmw PCD (Z -197.3-A)
LwOFPAOmBij, USPSONPFitiFEERAiTIACTSTDCAbRAME3t5GATE
ExHwrr D
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 Shacldeford Road -right of way. Auto
repair bay doors shall not face Shackleford Road. Enhanced landscaping
shall be provided with4he 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 PIANNFD ZONING DEVELOMENr SIMBUT MAIL. REVISED PCD (7.4923-A)
LIST OF PROMMM USES ON PFJIBUMAL TRACIS TO CANE ALDERSGATE
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
[32]
Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting (where 24 hours);
11
[33]
Laboratory;
12
[34]
Landscape service;
13
[35]
Lawn and garden center, enclosed;
14
[36]
Lawn and garden center, open display;
15
[37]
Laundromat;
16
[38]
Laundry, domestic cleaning,
17
[39]
Lodge or fraternal organization;
18
[40]
Lumberyard;
[PAGE 14 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVII_DMe4 : WhOiIT MAIL. REVISED PCD (Z -4923-A)
LIST OF PROKUMED USES ON PEAL TRACTS TO CAW AIDERSGATE
Ex1B1T D
7
r.
1 ` n
�r T5
[PAGE 11 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPIImNT: SLmN[rT MALL REVISED PCD (7,45 MOA)
PROPOSED SITE PLAN: SHADED PER]PiEBAL PARCELS
Exmrr C
O
1`LU
1
0
Z
cr-
3
194-
Z
N
—
cr-
I
2
List of Prohiibited 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 commercial programs, then the
6 following commercial uses shall not be permitted on the outparcels identified as the
7 shaded areas of ExEaBrr 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 [41 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
ORDugANcE To MODwr PiANNIW ZONING DEVELOPMENT: SUMMIT MALL REVISED PCD (Z -4923-A)
LIST OF FYOHIDITFD USES ON PnMHEBAL TI ACTS TO CAMP ALDERSGATE
I. :i:t�- �
Area. Zoning
Case ,T Z -4922—A N
SW Comer of Shacideford Rd. @ I430
r
f Cr: 24.04
TRS: TINROM 0 2CVA0 Feet
PQ 1 i 5
Yciniry Map '" ward s Item n
[PAGE 9 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT: SUNMT MALL REVISED PCD (Z49230A)
AMENDMENT TO CITY ZONING MAP
Exmrr A
9
<
v <
[PAGE 10 OF 171
C �
�
a f
Y�
M
9
<
v <
[PAGE 10 OF 171
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEvELormENr. SuNumT MALL HEvisED PCD (Z -49230A)
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ExmBrr B
O
M
Q
W
0
�
Z
Q
M
Q
Y
CV
t.:.J
j
N
LU
o
F -
o
V
y
3
o
14.
V)
W
V
C
ORDINANCE TO MODIFY PLANNED ZONING DEvELormENr. SuNumT MALL HEvisED PCD (Z -49230A)
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
ExmBrr B
-o
Z
Q
;
I Shackleford;
2 __ (f) _ Improvements to the off -ramp for I-430 northbound
3 from Shackleford;
4 (g) Improvements and widenzng to the Shackleford bridge
5 over I- 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 I-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) SigraLization 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 I-430 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
Section 7. Sewmbilily. 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 mi consistent with the provisions. of this ordinance, including but not limited to Little
Rock, Ark., Ordinance No. 15,385 (December 1, 1987), are hereby repealed to the extent of
such inconsistency.
PASSED: April 3, 2001
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Nancy Wood, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
�7&A - n6A=if'-
Thomas M. Carpenter, City uerney
Jim Dailey, Mayor
[PAGE 8 OF 171
I
1 (3) Lighting Plan. Any lighting plan for the parking lots and areas of
2 The Summit Mall will be designed in a manner toinii a the
3 impact on Camp Aldersgate. This plan shall include the use of cut off
4 type fixtures along the frontage of Shaddeford 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 tum off signage lighting within one (1) hour a store is closed
22 to the public.;
23 () Security Fencing. Developer shall provide an 8 -foot vinyl coated
24 chain link fence along the frontage property of Camp Aldersgate
25 abutting Shaddeford Road. Developer agrees to complete this fencing;
26 within six (6) months after completion of the construction of the
27 Shaddeford Road improvements and planting of the evergreens
28 described in the landscaping conditions set forth in paragraph (Cx4).
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
I
including, but not limited to, NPDES permits from the Arkansas Department
2
of Environmental Quality; State Highway right -0f -way permits as required by
3
the Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department for District VI;
4
grading permits, including but not limited to a grading permit for a special
5
flood hazard area;
6
(E) Developer shall submit all plans to the appropriate regulatory
7
authority for work in the right-of-way prior to the approval to start work in
8 _
these areas;
9
(F) The final development plan shall not be approved, and no building
10
permit issued, until the Developer can assure that the following City
11
infrastructure -improvements shall be completed .by the opening of The
12
Summit Mall. Proof of completion shall be deemed adequate when:
13
(1) The Developer has complied with Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code
14
§ 31-431 to —435 (1988), as may be amended, ordinances for the
15
assurance of the completion of infrastructure improvements; or,
16
(2) The City has established within its budget the funds and
17
appropriations that will assure the completion of any particular
18-
item listed, and - as further shown on Exhibit E to this
19
Ordinance.
20
(G) The City infrastructure improvements referred to in subsection (F)
21
above shall include the following:
22
(1) From I-430 south side access roads north to Peachtree
23
Shackleford Improvements including:
24
(a) Signalized and lighted intersections;
25
(b) Alignment of Peachtree street;
26
(c) Improvements to the on-ramp for I-430 southbound
27
from Shaddeford;
28
(d) Improvements to the off -ramp for I-430 southbound to
29
Shaddeford;
30
(e) Improvements to the on-ramp for I430 northbound to
[PAGE 6 OF 171
1
(A) The grant of final development plan approval within the time specified
2
by Little Rock, Ark. Rev. Code § 36454(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 propertyl and -more
19
particularly orrCamp 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 assIIorng s uch property is primarily used for
W.
eem�merc
23
social service programs and not forAco 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 17]
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) Shackleford Road Improvements. Developer agrees to widen
26
Shackleford Road to include at least two thru lanes in each direction
27
plus tum 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 17]
I ORDINANCE NO.
2
3 AN ORDINANCE TO MODIFY A PLANNED COMMERCIAL
4 DISTRICT AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A
5 PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT ENTITLED SUNT IIT MALL --
6 REVISED PCD ('1-4923-A), LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
7 CORNER OF SHACKLEFORD ROAD AND IN'T'ERSTATE -430, 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 AREAS, Summit Mall, LLC, and Constriction Developers, Inc., working
18 through the Simon Development Group of Indianapolis, Indiana, have requested certain
19 modifications to the existing PCD, and
20 WTLEREAS, after several public discussions before the Little Rock Planning
21 Commission 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 171
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 N87031'51" 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; NI8011'56" East
14 470.50 feet; N25035121" East 372.20 feet; N49°14'40" East 555.15 feet;
15 N67'54'24" East 92.60 feet; N75037'40" East 187.92 feet; N82021119" 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
13 following.bearings and distances; S06°57'53" East 252.26 feet; S05036'25" West
19 200.16 feet; S30008'55"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 N87°31'27" 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 S02006'05" 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 17]
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction.......................................................1
Development Concept.....................................3
Traffic..................................................................5
Landscape..........................................................8
Grading/ Detention..........................................10
Utilities...............................................................11
Project Data.......................................................11
Exhibits
Project Location Map
Project Aerial View
Preliminary Project Site Plan
Preliminary Grading Plan
Preliminary Utility Layout Plan
Preliminary Roadway Improvements Plan
Preliminary Landscape Plan
Preliminary Landscape Sections and Elevations
The property is currently owned by Summit Mall, LLC a partnership comprised of affiliates of
Dillard's Department Stores of Little Rock, Arkansas and Simon Property Group of Indianapolis,
Indiana. Dillard's has long been a proud corporate citizen of the City of Little Rock and one of
largest department store owners in the United States. Simon Property Group is a publicly traded
Real Estate Investment Trust (or REIT) and is by far the largest owner/ operator of regional shop-
ping centers in the United States with a current market capitalization of approximately $17B and
ownership of more than 250 properties in 36 states. Copies of Simon Property Group's corporate
profile have been provided to the Planning Department for interested parties.
The Owners acquired the Summit site under the current PCD zoning in February 1995 and has
actively marketed the project to prospective tenants since that time. This application, a modifi-
cation to the existing PCD, is the culmination of those efforts to bring the highest quality, state of
the art, fashion oriented regional shopping and entertainment experience to the rapidly growing
west Little Rock market at a location providing appropriate regional access and public infra-
structure.
The conceptual development plans including site, grading, public utilities, stormwater deten-
tion, landscape and recommended road improvement plans together with a detailed traffic re-
port have been prepared in support of the PCD modification request. This book provides an
overview of the project to assist in explaining the design features and planned components of the
project.
2
Introduction
The Summit Mall site is located in West Little Rock at the southeast corner of Interstate Highway
430 and Shackleford Road. The project is being submitted to the City of Little Rock for considera-
tion as an amendment to the current Planned Commercial Development (PCD) to effectuate
changes in the proposed development program. The site is comprised of three tracts totalling
approximately 97.4 acres of contiguous land adjacent to the 1430 / Shackleford interchange.
The developer has stayed true to the initial regional mall concept as approved by the City of
Little Rock for the Summit property and has improved upon many facets of the original plan.
The concept of providing a comprehensive and internalized project offering a variety of retail
goods and services has been maintained in the current proposal. The design team has worked
very carefully with city staff to insure that this signature development will integrate into the
community with minimal impacts.
1
Development Concept
The Summit project is tucked into the rolling hillsides at the southeast corner of I-430 and
Shackleford Road. The project is proposed to include retail plus other uses generally found in
conjunction with a first class regional mall including office and sit-down full service restaurants
centered around a two level enclosed regional mall providing up to four full line department
stores, speciality anchors, a food pavilion and shops, many of whom are new to the Little Rock
market.
The concept site plan features an innovative mix of both open air and enclosed environments to
provide a pedestrian friendly and attractive setting in which to shop; dine, or work. Integration
of the on site uses will be accomplished by providing safe and attractive vehicular and pedes-
trian linkages from all the parcels in the project. A well conceived internal vehicular driveway
system with appropriate directional signs and defined by tree lined landscaped islands and me-
dians together with sidewalk connections located within shaded corridors will encourage pe-
destrian activity throughout the property.
The enclosed regional mall is currently proposed to include four full line department stores,
approximately 320,000 SF of speciality shops and an eight unit food pavilion to be located at
center court. Final plans for the mall will include updated retail concepts located in a high qual-
ity fashion oriented center that will feature a two level pedestrian concourse and light and open
courts. Entries will draw upon architectural styles compatible and familiar to the Little Rock
area to provide a comfortable and unique experience to the city.
Dillard's department store is proposed to be approximately 300,000 square feet and will be a
flagship store for the chain. It is anticipated that another department store will be new to the
Arkansas market. All of the retail will be merchandised to provide the highest quality and vari-
ety of offerings available to this state of the art facility. The shops which the developer estimates
to be 60 in number, will also include a mixture of high end home furnishing and accessory stores.
These stores will feature both indoor and outdoor store fronts centered around a pedestrian
plaza and boulevard enhancing the appearance of the center from Shackleford Road.
The mall project will include 3 peripheral tracts. Each of the blocks is proposed to allow uses
permitted in the C-3 zoning classification. Landscape buffers will be retained along Shackleford
Road and the northern off ramp of the I-430 interchange. While it is difficult to project potential
uses Block A lends itself to restaurants and / or speciality retail stores which will benefit from the
close access to the interchange. The location of the southern entrance drive was positioned to
better serve Aldersgate Camp's long range plans and landscape buffering will be provided along
3
their Shackleford frontage to reduce impacts to the camp site. Particular attention will be paid to
providing cutoff lighting in parking field adjacent to Shaddeford and restrictions including build-
ing heights, building materials and signs will be implemented to ensure there are minimal im-
pacts to the camp.
The project will be developed in a single continuous phase. Providing an overall earthwork
balance within the site is the goal for the grading concept. This will minimize transport of mate-
rial onto and away from the site and will ensure the bulk of the grading work will be performed
in as short a time period as possible thereby minimizing impacts to adjacent property. Sedimen-
tation controls will be installed prior to the grading work to insure no downstream siltation
problems occur. A project of this magnitude will obvious involve significant alteration of the
existing site contours to provide a finish grade that is safe, convenient for the customers, and
meets the design criteria of the anchor stores. Such alteration of internal site cut and fills (at
places exceeding 50') make saving existing trees within the site difficult. The developer reviewed
the concept of transplanting available onsite tree resources within the property. While this con-
cept sounds attractive, it was determined that survivability rates would be low due to the hold-
ing periods and further evaluation of existing tree stock further concluded that the native plantings
were less attractive than nursery grown tree stock. The developer has proposed an extensive
onsite landscape and buffering program discussed in a subsequent section of this report. The
developer is requesting a project parking ratio that would minimize, to the extent practical, the
quantity of surface parking area required for the project. Further, the developer has met with
staff to make every effort to satisfy the current landscape and buffering ordinance. Proposed
project elevations and cross sections have been provided herein. In addition the developer has
satisfied the staff that he has met landscape and buffering requirements of the new ordinance by
exceeding the requirement for open space and plantings.
Access to the site is critical to the success of the project and the project's location immediately
adjacent to existing 6 lane I-430 makes this a superior regional retail site. The developer has
worked closely with Public Works Department to evaluate existing traffic patterns and projected
impacts of the project on the existing system. Due to growth in the area over the past decade, the
existing road network in the vicinity of the Summit site has existing deficiencies during certain
peak hour periods. The improvements identified herein would not only mitigate impacts of the
project on the existing system and but would also correct the existing deficiencies. The improve-
ments identified include a significant improvement to the I-430/Shackleford on and off ramp
system, widening of the Shackleford bridge over I-430 from three to six lanes and widening of
Shackleford Road fronting the project from two to four lanes plus an additional continuous de-
celeration lane fronting the site and signalized turn lanes at the three project entry drives.
4
The project has over 2,000 feet of frontage on Shackleford Road which, by code would allow as
many as ten drive cuts to the site along the frontage of the property. The current PCD provides
four access drive cuts along the frontage. By lengthening the onsite entry drives, this proposed
modification to the PCD reduces the proposed driveways cuts from four to three fully signalized
entries. This will further reduce the visual clutter along Shackleford without compromising the
safe and efficient flow of traffic. The full traffic report is on file with the Public Works Depart-
ment of the City and is summarized in the following section.
Traffic
Peters and Associates Engineers, Inc., at the request of Simon Property Group, has conducted a
traffic engineering study relating to a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) near the inter-
section of I-430 and Shackleford Road in Little Rock, Arkansas. The commercial site, referred to
as Summit Mall is proposed to consist of a mall, restaurants, office space and variety of other
retail uses as indicated on the project site plan.
This is a report of methodology and findings relating to a traffic engineering study undertaken
to:
■ Evaluate existing traffic conditions at the site.
■ Ascertain projected traffic operating conditions at the adjacent intersections in the vi
cinity and the access drive intersections proposed to serve the site.
■ Identify the effects on traffic operations resulting from existing traffic in combination
with site -generated traffic associated with the development.
■ Evaluate proposed access to the site and make recommendations for mitigative im
provements, which may be necessary and appropriate to ensure minimum impact
and adequate traffic operations.
The location of the development is within the City of Little Rock in Pulaski County, Arkansas.
This site is located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I-430 and Shackleford Road.
The site is approximately 100 acres in size and is bounded by I-430 on the west and north and by
Shackleford Road on the east.
This traffic study has examined the traffic operations in the vicinity of the proposed commercial
development. A number of conditions existing and projected at full development of this site
5
and physical factors relating to the adjacent streets, traffic control and existing background traf-
fic volumes were considered in evaluating the traffic operations which exist and which are pro-
jected in the vicinity of the site. These have included:
■ Existing traffic volumes on the adjacent streets.
• The character and magnitude of the development proposed for the site.
• Site plan layout.
Possible street system changes.
The roadway geometry of the adjacent streets and access drives.
■ Projected "vehicle trips" or traffic volumes estimated to be generated by the proposed
development.
Traffic control needs of site and non -site traffic.
The study has identified existing deficiencies in the surrounding street network and has formu-
lated improvements that will be needed to assure safe and sufficient access for the site. The
complete report provides details of both existing and projected traffic conditions in the vicinity
of the site.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following intersections in the study area are deficient operationally; operating at LOS "D" or
below with existing traffic volumes and existing lane geometry. These intersections presently
need traffic signal control and would operate at better than LOS "D" if traffic signals are in-
stalled. Installation of traffic signal control at the intersections will mitigate the capacity defi-
ciencies that are present with existing traffic. This need exists prior to any additional traffic in-
creases associated with this development.
• Shackleford Road and I-430 northbound ramps
■ Shackleford Road and I-430 southbound ramps
• Shackleford Road and Colonel Glenn Road
■ Shaddeford Road and 361' Street
• Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 northbound ramps
• Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 southbound ramps.
0
SUMMIT FULL BUILDOUT CONDITIONS
The Saturday PM peak hour of Shackleford Road at the site has been determined by the City
Public Works Department to be the worst-case traffic condition in the vicinity. It is estimated that
approximately 4,466 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average Saturday peak hour are
projected to be generated by the proposed planned commercial development on this site. Ap-
proximately 3,285 vehicle trips (combined in and out) per average weekday peak hour are pro-
jected to be generated.
The intersection of the all three access drives and Shackleford Road were analysed under worst
case Saturday projected traffic conditions for full development. With widening of Shackleford
Road as herein recommended to accommodate the proposed additional lanes, results of this
study show that all these access drives intersections will operate at LOS "C" or better with traffic
signal control and with the widening.
These following intersections in the study area (already operating at LOS "D" or below) will also
operate at LOS "D" or below under full development projected traffic conditions if no changes to
the existing geometrics and traffic control are made. These intersections will operate at LOS "C"
or better under projected traffic conditions with recommended widening and traffic signal con-
trol installed.
■ Shackleford Road and I-430 northbound ramps
■ Shackleford Road and I-430 southbound ramps
Shackleford Road and Colonel Glenn Road
• Shackleford Road and 36th Street
■ Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 northbound ramps
• Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 southbound ramps
To address the existing traffic control deficiencies, it is recommended that the developer partici-
pate with the City of Little Rock to install the currently needed traffic signal control at the inter-
sections listed below:
• Shackleford Road and I-430 northbound ramps
■ Shackleford Road and I-430 southbound ramps
■ Shackleford Road and Colonel Glenn Road
• Shackleford Road and 360' Street
■ Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 northbound ramps
■ Colonel Glenn Road and I-430 southbound ramps.
7
It is recommended that the developer install traffic signal control at the intersections of all three
access drives and Shackleford Road and provide necessary widening to Shackleford Road as
herein recommended.
Vertical alignment changes on Shackleford Road at the site will be necessary to conform to City
of Little Rock design standards and to provide sufficient sight distance all three access drives.
The construction of the I-430 southbound loop ramp and Shackleford Road overpass widening,
as herein recommended, is major highway construction. It is a necessary improvement which
warrants both public and private participation. It will require acquisition of additional right-of-
way from owners uninvolved in this project. This construction will also require Arkansas State
Highway and Transportation Department and Federal Highway Administration approvals.
Landscape
The landscape plan for the Summit project is a critical component of the total design. The devel-
oper is very sensitive to the importance of quality landscaping to the overall image of the project.
Considerable effort has been expended to develop a comprehensive plan for the project. This
plan provides for new plantings as well as some preservation in nondisturbed areas where re-
quired by the proposed buffering ordinance.
From a landscape and buffering perspective, the site generally benefits from the existing topog-
raphy which, even after development grading is completed, leaves much of the parking elevated
above adjacent streets. From I-430 the finish floor of the main buildings will be approximately 50
feet above the highway. This means, as illustrated in the cross sections provided in this report,
that parking areas will generally be below the sight line and therefore out of view. The buffer
slopes are significant and in many cases terraced concrete block modular walls will be required
to support parking areas. These slopes and terrace walls allow an opportunity to provide land-
scape plantings which will be designed to provide buffers from the highway and soften the ap-
pearance of the walls. In areas, it will be possible to provide limited zones of reforestation where
not in conflict with wall design recommendation and select view corridors. The view corridors
will also be landscaped with ground cover and tree stock selected to maintain "filtered" views
into the site.
The I-430 frontage is further benefited by significant stands of existing mature trees within the
public right of way. These areas are outside the scope of disturbance and will remain in existing
condition. These areas are depicted on the landscape plan and illustrated in the sections and
elevations provided.
8
The mall is generally in an elevated condition relative to Shackleford Road. With widening of
Shackleford and site grading there are no opportunities for preservation of existing buffering
along this frontage due to the extensive work proposed. Shackleford Road itself is scheduled to
be widened and improved to take out the severe rollercoaster effect, which is experienced when
driving the street today. The majority of the frontage is elevated above the adjacent right of way
and therefore long sloping embankments of grass, clusters of deciduous shade trees and land-
scaped areas will be oriented so as to provide optimal exposure from the street. Slopes will not
exceed 2:1 with out use of walls which will be kept to a minimum and constructed of materials
compatible in style and color with the building construction. This too is illustrated on the plans
and elevations provided in the book.
Entryways will be enhanced with flowering trees such as Crape Myrtle and Crabapples with
more detailed perennial plantings within medians and at the base of project signs.
Internally the emphasis will be placed on achieving the optimal impact of landscape treatments.
The emphasis will be on shade trees within various islands designed to define driveways and
pedestrian corridors and separate the larger fields of parking into smaller blocks of space. Adja-
cent to the building the landscape will be more of a pedestrian scale with shrubs, ground cover
and annuals punctuating the entrances to the mall and stores. The main street storefront area is
to have a different feel with cut outs in the sidewalk providing space for street trees and more
emphasis on pots for a more urban feel.
Parking lots will be well lit with fixtures that are timed to turn off non security lights when the
center is closed. Fixtures adjacent to the perimeter of the site will be provided with cut off housings
to avoid spill over to adjacent properties.
As indicated previously in the report all mass grading will occur with the initial construction of
the project to avoid later disturbance to the area. All peripheral blocks which are not scheduled
for subsequent construction shall be seeded and kept neat and mowed until developed.
Every possible effort has been made to comply with the proposed revisions to Little Rock's land-
scape and tree preservation and buffer ordinances. The design successfully meets the require-
ment for 87o interior landscaping in the vehicular use area and significantly exceeds the 1 tree/ 12
parking space requirement. Proposed buffers comply with size and planting requirements with
more than one tree/ 750 sq. ft. of buffer and several areas where some existing trees are to be
preserved. Trees will comply with size requirements of the ordinance with 5070 being 3" caliper
or larger and 507o being 2" caliper or larger. This excludes some small evergreen seedlings which
9
are planned for use in some buffer areas for screening where terracing is required as mentioned
in section 15-102 of the proposed ordinance.
Landscaping will also comply with all shrub and groundcover planting requirements, however
some tree planting in excess of ordinance requirements may be substituted for a portion of the
total shrub requirement as allowed by section 15-105e of the proposed ordinance.
The planned anchor department store and peripheral tenants will be responsible for their build-
ing landscape areas, but they will comply with building landscape requirements. Interior plant-
ing islands all comply with minimum size requirements and plant materials ultimately selected
for all planting will comply with ordinance requirements.
A 26 foot wide undisturbed strip of buffer is to be provided at the south property line. This area
along with an additional 13,000 square feet of preserved existing trees will meet the proposed
70% tree preservation requirement for buffers between dissimilar uses.
Grading/Detention
It appears that a variety of appropriate detention facilities can be incorporated into the project to
enhance the project's appearance as well as provide more than adequate detention capacity and
protection from downstream flooding.
The existing condition of the site is one of rolling hills with average grades from 87o to 14%. The
site is tree -covered with little or no ground cover. The principal runoff areas are to the east at
four different locations and to the southwest corner of the site. It is anticipated that after the
project is complete, approximately 207o of the site will have tree and/or grass cover. The runoff
from the completed project will remain at the current discharge locations although quantities
will differ somewhat from existing conditions. It is anticipated at this time that several different
types of detention facilities will be used for the project. The main detention facility will be 1.5 to
2 acre lake located in the southwestern portion of the site. This lake will be a permanent facility
with 5 feet of detention availability during heavy runoff. A dry detention depression will be east
side of the site. This area will be approximately an acre in area with a depth of 2-3 feet.
Some parking lot detention as well a pipe detention and ditch check detention facilities will be
used. Exact locations and sizes will be determined at the time of final design on all detention
facilities. Rooftop detention will not be used in this project.
10
Utilities
The 97 acre site is adequately served by existing water and sanitary sewer lines. A 16" water line
is located on the east side of Shackleford Road along the northern 2,000 feet of the site. This line
then reduces to a 12" line for the remaining 1,000 feet. The Little Rock Municipal Water Works
has stated that this line has adequate pressure to serve a large scale mixed-use development. The
pressure is maintained by two tanks, the ground tank at Colonel Glenn exit to the south of the
site and the elevated storage tank at Kanis Road to the north. The pressure gradient in the area is
approximately Elevation 600 Mean Sea Level, which is more than adequate for service to this
area. The Little Rock Fire Department is receptive to the project and feels that the site has ad-
equate water service for fire protection. During the design phase of the project we will work
closely with them and the City to provide adequate on-site fire protection within the buildings as
well as the location of exterior hydrants and access to the buildings.
Sanitary sewer service is available to the site at three locations. An 8" line located at the north-
east corner of the project. A 12" line is located approximately 400 feet south of the southeast
corner of the site along the east side of Shackleford Road. The third line is a 24" line located
approximately 100 feet south of the southwest corner of the project. Currently an 8" sanitary
sewer line ties into the 24" line at the southwest corner and runs northeasterly through the
southern 1,000 feet of the site to serve the Cable TV office on Shackleford Road. This line will be
relocated during construction development, although service will be maintained at the Cable TV
office. The three locations for sewer service allow the site to be easily served without requiring
major off-site sewer construction.
Project Data
The site contains a gross acreage of 97.446 acres. It is anticipated that additional right of way shall
be conveyed to the City of Little Rock in conjunction with improvements proposed to Shackleford
Road. Exact acreage shall be determined at the time of final roadway engineering. Block A, B,
and C will be platted out from the mall core and replatted to fit individual users.
The acreage of Blocks A, B, and C total approximately 12.2 acres. The developer shall establish
development standards to insure compatible development of the blocks. It is anticipated that
uses will be typical of those found in the C-3 category including office, hotel, retail, and restau-
rant.
11
This proposal requests that a parking requirement be established for the project that blend the
uses in the core retail to allow for 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of Gross Leasable Area (GLA).
GLA is defined here to exclude the large pedestrian common areas as well as "back of house"
exiting and management offices inside the mall. As for the department stores and junior anchors,
GLA will be defined to include floor area, still calculated at the 4.5 ratio. Uses within designated
separately platted outlots shall be calculated separately on the basis of 4.5 spaces for 1000 square
feet of retail and offices, 1 space per 10 seats for sit down restaurants and 1 space per room for
hotels.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
As indicated the grading and development is anticipated to occur in one continuous phase. All
mass grading will be performed in the initial phases of development. It is anticipated that final
design of the project will commence immediately upon receipt of DOT permits required for the
improvements to the interchange. Based of the normal construction time requirement antici-
pated for this project it is projected that the mall will open in fall of 2003.
12