Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-4923-A Staff AnalysisLF September 14, 2000 ITEM NO.: B FILE NO.: NAME: Summit Mall - Revised PCD LOCATION: Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and Interstate 430 nr.VEi.OPER : Summit Mall Co., LLC & Construction Developers, c/o Simon Development Group 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 AREA: 97 acres ZONING: PCD Z -4923-A ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Inc. 219 East Markham St., Ste. 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 ALLOWED USES: FT. NEW STREET: 0 Commercial/Office Mixed Development PROPOSED USE: Commercial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1987, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/0_2 to PCD, establishing the Summit Mall - Zang -Farm PCD. The approved site plan included a 975,000 square foot shopping mall, three000 square office buildings totaling 000feet' ' foot hotel (250 rooms) and two (2) restaurant lease parcels totaling 20,000 square feet. A total of 5,945 parking spaces was proposed, some of which were Located in a parking deck for the proposed office buildings. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD with an entirely new site development plan. The new proposed site plan consists of the following: September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 1• An 878,000 shopping mall located within the north one- half of the property. 2. An 85,700 square foot, 4,238 seat movie theatre located near the southwest co rner of the property. 3. Three (3) retail/office buildings with a total area of 77'400 square feet, located between the mall building and the theatre_ 4. Four (4) lease parcels/restaurant sites (32,000 square feet total) at the southeast corner of the property. S. A lease/out parcel at the northeast corner of the property labeled as office/hotel/retail. 6. 4,734 parking spaces. 7. Three (3) access points from Shackleford Road. The proposed buildings, parking areas, drives and landscaped areas are noted on the attached site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: C. Ea The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, with varying degrees Interstate 430 iof slope throughout the property. s located immediately north and west of the Property, with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary. Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to the east. The property immediately south is also vacant and wooded. There is'a Comcast Cable office building and tower along the west side of Shackleford Road which is surrounded by the proposed mall site. NEIGHBORHOOD CMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received comments and concerns from the Camp Aldersgate representatives. The John Barrow, Sandpiper and Sewer District #147 Neighborhood Associations have been notified of the public hearing. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: I. Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis. 2. Redesign site to include a ring road built to commercial street standards for access to commercial activity around the site. This road should have access points designed along the route with drive spacing at not less than 250 feet on center. 2 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 3. Analyze the Shackleford/I-430 interchange capacity with and without development traffic to verify adequacy of the interchange and recommend improvements due to development. 4. Verify with plan and profile that adequate sight distance is provided at all points of access. 5. Verify with capacity analysis that all site intersections will operate at a minimum level of service of "D" during the peak hour of the generator. 6. Provide preliminary arterial lighting plan for Shackleford Road adjacent to site. 7. NPDES permit from ADEQ, including Wetland Clearance will be required. 8. Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 10. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these street including 5 foot sidewalks with planned development. 11. All internal streets must be designed to commercial street standards. 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 13. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 14. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 15. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 16. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 17. Existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required. 18. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 19. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. 20. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8-283 is required. 21. A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8- 283 is required. 3 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO_: Z -4923-A 22. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is required. 23. Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of work is required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main relocation and extension required with easements. AP&L: Underground easements will have to be negotiated at a later date when transformers are located to make a loop through the shopping center. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: On site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150/acre, plus a development fee based on the size of connections, will apply in addition to the normal connection charges. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for information regarding turning radii and fire hydrant placement. County Planning: No Comment. CATA: CATA Route #3 serves very near this site. This location is in a key area for transit. CATA would like to discuss opportunities with the developer to incorporate a bus pullout(s) on the periphery of the site. Better pedestrian links/stronger connections within the site need to be established. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial. The revision of an existing PCD is consistent with the current land use category. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan. 4 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) Landscape Issues: FILE NO.: Z -4923-A Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. Because this property has significant variations in its grade elevations, cross sections showing the proposed method of treatment will be necessary. Since this site is currently covered in trees, the City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many of the existing trees as feasible. This includes preserving trees within the street buffers. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. G. ANALYSIS: As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments, a great deal of information regarding this application is needed by staff. Some of the additional information requested by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting is as follows: 1. Discuss phasing plan. Show proposed phasing on site plan. 2. Provide grading plan with respect to the proposed phases. Note areas within the site where existing trees will be preserved. 3. Discuss street buffer treatment along I-430 and Shackleford Road. 4. Note proposed sign location(s) and provide details. 5. Show dumpster locations. 6. Provide north/south and east/west sections and elevations. 7. Show retaining walls on the site plan and provide details. 8. There should be no grading or site work prior to obtaining a building permit. 9. Staff has concerns with the proposed lease parcels at the southeast corner of the property. The previously approved site plan included only two (2) lease parcels/restaurant sites, one (1) on each side of the Comcast property. Provide proposed uses for the lease parcels. 5 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 10. Provide definite proposed use for the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. 11. Provide a very detailed cover letter regarding this project (phases, proposed uses, etc.) and addressing the design features as offered by the previous developer and the conditions agreed to with the previous approval. 12. Define proposal. Is the proposed revised PCD site plan requested for a three (3) year approval? Include this information in the cover letter. These are issues which need to be addressed by the applicant in addition to the Public Works, Utility, Fire Department, CATA and Landscape requirements and comments. One of the main concerns that staff has with the proposed project relates to the phasing of the plan with respect to the overall site grading (cuts and fill, etc.). The existing contour plan as submitted by the applicant notes that the existing high point of the property is located within the northeast one-quarter of the property and the lowest point within the site is near the southwest corner of the property. The proposed contour plan shows that the high point of the property will be lowered approximately 75 to 80 feet and the low point (location of theatre building) will be raised approximately 60 feet. An overall plan for the site phasing and grading needs to be resolved, to include information on street buffer treatment and tree preservation. The effect of the proposed development on the adjacent property to the south and the Camp Aldersgate property across Shackleford Road to the east should also be discussed and resolved. The Subdivision Committee determined at its meeting on December 9, 1999 that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation of this item to the full Commission on January 6, 2000. This will allow the other commissioners to express concerns that they might have with this proposed development. Then the item would need to be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow the applicant to respond to the issues and concerns, and present additional information to staff and the Subdivision Committee (January 27, 2000). It was also discussed by the Subdivision Committee that a six (6) month time extension of the previously approved PCD wou.1d-bo reasonable . This 6 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A is based on the fact that a deferral as requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee would cause this issue to extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this application to the February 17, 2000 Planning Commission agenda. Staff also recommends that previously approved PCD be September 18, 2000. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: the expiration date of the extended six (6) months to (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff described the proposed revised PCD site plan, noting that a great deal of additional information was needed. Staff noted that this item was a candidate for deferral. There was a discussion of the project which included topics relating to phasing, grading, parking standards and the conditions approved with the previous site plan. It was noted that better pedestrian circulation needed to be provided between the mall building and the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. It was noted that a traffic impact analysis was needed. Phasing of street improvements was also discussed. Public Works representatives noted phased development to include street improvements could be supported. The grading of the site and cuts into the hillside were also discussed. The Committee ultimately decided that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation to the full Commission on January 6, 2000 in order to determine what other issues commissioners might have. Then the item would be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow time for the applicant to address staff and Commission concerns and present the plan back to the Subdivision Committee on January 27, 2000. 6 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A It was also determined that a six (6) month time extension on the previously approved PCD would be appropriate, given the fact that a deferral would cause this issue to extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. The Committee then forwarded the revised PCD to the full Commission for preliminary discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff explained that as a result of the Subdivision Committee review of this item, the applicant was to make a preliminary presentation of the revised PCD at this meeting and that the item should be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda. Staff noted that there was much additional information which was needed. Staff also noted that since the application needed to be deferred, an extension of time for the previously approved PCD was in order. The previously approved PCD expires on March 18, 2000. Commissioner Rahman asked that the time extension be considered first. There was a brief discussion regarding the time extension issue. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, explained the time extension issue. There was a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for the previously approved PCD (new expiration date -September 18, 2000). The motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Nunnley asked the purpose of the preliminary presentation. Staff explained that the preliminary presentation was to determine if the Commission had any additional concerns that have not been addressed by staff. Chair Adcock expressed concern with having the preliminary presentation at this time. Mr. Lawson noted that the Camp Aldersgate representatives had concerns with the proposed development that needed to be worked out. 8 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4923-A Commissioner Rector stated that the applicant should work with Camp Aldersgate and address any concerns. There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17, 2000 agenda. There was a brief discussion of the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2000) Pat McGetrick, Chuck Synder, Ernie Peters, Greg Simmons and., Merle Seamon were present, representing the application. The applicants briefly reviewed the revised site plan with the Committee, noting that the most significant change in the plan was within the southeast corner of the property. The drive location was revised with the restaurants being on the south side of the drive and a landscaped lake area between the drive and the Comcast property. The applicants then discussed the phasing plan for the property. The new phasing plan limits the total clearing and excavation to be done with Phase I (cinema building and restaurants). There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of cut and fill that would be done. Mr. McGetrick noted that the maximum cut would be approximately 110 feet at the highest point. He also noted that the largest amount of fill would be approximately 45 feet near the southwest corner of the property. Issues relating to grading and retaining wall construction were briefly discussed. Bob Turner, of Public Works, noted that the applicant had submitted a traffic study. He noted that Public Works had concerns related to the traffic study and was not in a position at this time to support the study. There was a general discussion of this issue. The applicant stated that the Commissioners would be provided with a copy of the study, most likely when completed to Public Works satisfaction. The applicant presented cross-sections of the proposed project. These were briefly discussed. Frank Riggins noted that Camp Aldersgate was in support of the revised site plan, but was still negotiating with the applicant on some issues (lighting, etc.). 7 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A There was additional discussion of the site design. There was also discussion as to whether the applicant would be ready for a vote from the Commission on February 17, 2000. The applicants stated that an attempt would be made to resolve all of the outstanding issues and be ready for Commission action on February 17, 2000. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 17, 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that this item be deferred to the March 30, 2000 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 301 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 301, 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on March 23, 2000 requesting that this application be deferred to the June 22, 2000 agenda. Staff noted that the applicant, requesting a third deferral, would be required to renotify property owners within 200 feet. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 22, 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 22, 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on June 7, 2000 requesting that this application be deferred to the September 14, 2000 agenda. Staff supported the 10 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A deferral request. Staff noted that this would be the last deferral request supported. The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 14, 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant reviewed a revised site plan with staff during the week of August 14, 2000 and with the Subdivision Committee on August 24, 2000 (see Subdivision Committee comments below). The applicant also submitted development plan and a traffic study booklets, which were delivered by staff to the individual Planning Commissioners on August 29, 2000 for review. Staff is continuing to review the development plan and traffic study and will make a recommendation at the public hearing on September 14, 2000. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 24, 2000) Chuck Snyder, Merle Seamon, Pat McGetrick, Earnie Peters, Greg Simmons and John Flake were present, representing the application. The applicants presented the Committee with the revised site plan and explained the changes that were made. Chuck Snyder noted that the addition of a fourth anchor caused the site plan to be revised. He also noted that there had been no interest from a theatre user. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr. Snyder noted that the lease parcels along Shackleford Road would be for C-3 type uses (restaurant, specialty retail), but could include office use. Office uses for the lease parcels was discussed. There was a brief discussion relating to the amount of parking proposed. Vice -Chair Berry stated that the parking should be calculated based on the gross leasable floor area and not the total gross floor area. This was briefly discussed. The proposed excavation associated with the development plan was briefly discussed. Mr. McGetrick noted that the maximum cut would be 90 to 100 feet. 11 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4923-A The issue of retaining walls was discussed. The applicants noted that there would be retaining walls on the south side of the Comcast property and retaining walls to support the fill material along the south and west property lines. Stormwater detention was also discussed. A topic of discussion also included which trees along the south and west perimeter areas would be saved. The applicant presented cross-sections for these areas showing the proposed retaining walls. The applicant noted that if single taller walls (higher than 15 feet) were allowed, rather than multiple shorter walls, more existing trees within these perimeter areas could be saved. This issue was discussed. Bob Turner, Director of Public Works, asked about the relationship of the taller walls to I-430. Mr. McGetrick stated that he would supply the appropriate drawings to show this. There was a discussion of how the proposed site plan relates to the new proposed landscape ordinance. Mr. Flake noted that the previous site plan had to be revised very little to conform to the proposed new ordinance. Interior landscaping was briefly discussed. It was noted that more interior landscaping was needed within the parking area on the east side of the Dillards building. Bob Brown, of the Planning Staff, noted that the interior landscaping needed to be more evenly distributed in this area. Vice -Chair Berry noted that he would like to see plans for interior pedestrian walkways. This issue was discussed. Terri Davis, of CATA, noted that a public bus drop-off area was needed for workers and customers who would come to the site by public transit. The traffic issues were discussed. Bob Turner noted that Public Works was in the process of reviewing the traffic study. Earnie Peters reviewed the adjacent and off-site street improvements which would have to be made. The Committee asked if the developer planned to pay for all of the improvements. Mr. Snyder noted that the developer would do all adjacent and off- site improvements and had no problem with this being a condition of approval. He noted that the developer was exploring financing alternatives. Mr. Peters noted that the State Highway Department and the Federal Highway Administration would have to approve the design. 12 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.• B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A The proposed project was discussed in relation to the Aldersgate property across Shackleford Road to the east. The applicants noted that they had a meeting scheduled with Camp Aldersgate representatives. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PCD to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) Rod Vosper, Chuck Snyder, John Flake, Merle Seamon, Pat McGetrick, Earnie Peters and Greg Simmons were present, representing the application. There was one person present with concerns. Staff described the proposed PCD site plan and noted that the applicant had made changes since the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of the agenda report. Staff noted that the applicant had added more interior landscape areas, created a pedestrian circulation system, shown building landscaping and sign locations, and had made a commitment to provide a bus turn -out. Staff also noted that the applicant had been working Camp Aldersgate on the project. John Flake addressed the Commission in support of the project. He noted that the project would create 1,600 new construction jobs, 2,500 permanent jobs and thirteen million dollars in property taxes. He noted that the developers had made a strong effort to comply with the new proposed landscape ordinance requirements. Bob Billman, of the Arkansas Heart Hospital, addressed the Commission in support of the project. He noted that the close proximity of the mall to the Heart Hospital will benefit and provide goods and services to the families and visitors of hospital patients. Bill Spivey, of Camp Aldersgate, also addressed the Commission in support of the project. He noted that the previous developer of the property had made assurances to Camp Aldersgate. He noted that Camp Aldersgate had concerns with the quality of 13 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A their lake, landscaping and noise generation. He noted that the developer had provided written proposals to Camp Aldersgate which addresses these concerns. Rod Vosper, of Simon Properties, addressed the Commission in support of the project. He noted that Simon has been marketing the project to potential tenants for the past three years. Mr. Vosper explained the project. He noted that parking was provided on the site plan at a rate of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area. He noted that the site plan addresses a pedestrian circulation system. Mr. Vosper described the streetscape along Shackleford Road and the east elevation of the mall building. He noted that C-3 permitted uses had been requested for the out parcels, but some specific uses had been eliminated from the group of C-3 permitted uses, in response to concerns from Camp Aldersgate. He provided a list of the prohibited uses (for the out parcels) to the Commission. Commissioner Nunnley asked about a bus stop. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that the developer will provide a bus turnout and has been working with Keith Jones of CATA, but the exact location of the bus turnout has not yet been determined. Commissioner Nunnley stated that he wanted a user friendly bus turnout for the project. In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley, the use list for the out parcels was discussed. Commissioner Nunnley asked if the project hinged on Camp Aldersgate approval and asked Mr. Vosper to discuss the benefits this project will have for the City. Mr. Vosper briefly discussed these issues. Commissioner Nunnley stated that the applicant had not talked to the citizen of Little Rock as a whole. He further stated that if Dillards opens a store in this mall, the store in Park Plaza will close. He noted additional concern with public transit. He stated that he was concerned that the development will be exclusionary. Mr. Vosper stated that he could not speak for Dillards and their future intentions, but felt that the malls on University Avenue would remain strong. Commissioner Downing asked about the staff recommendation. Bob Turner, Director of Public Works, noted that his department was 14 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A in agreement with the traffic study and the proposed street improvements. He stated that the proposed improvements will be able to handle the traffic that will be generated by the proposed project. Commissioner Earnest discussed the impact that this development will have on the area. He asked about the cost of the proposed street improvements and asked who would pay for the improvements. Mr. Turner noted that the City would pay for none of the improvements, and noted that the applicant might work with the State for funding. He also noted that the application needed to be conditioned on the developer obtaining approval from the State for the proposed interstate improvements. He stated that the Public Works requirements should be adhered to and discussed these requirements. He noted that he supported tall retaining walls along the west and south property lines, and by constructing these taller walls more existing trees will be preserved. Mr. Vosper stated that this development will be accessible to all persons and will not be exclusionary. He noted that the projected mall opening would be 2003. Chair Adcock asked if the applicant had consulted with the State Highway Department. Earnie Peters, traffic engineer for the project, stated that he has reviewed the plan with the State. He noted that the State has not yet approved the project, but he expects them to do so. He noted that federal approval is also needed and this would take 6 to 10 months. He discussed the street improvements which will need to be made according to his traffic study. Commissioner Rahman asked if all of the Public Works issues had been resolved. Mr. Turner noted that the applicant had agreed to all of the Public Works requirements. He briefly discussed the proposed retaining walls, and noted that Public Works supports the taller retaining walls as proposed. Mr. Vosper noted that the mall anchor tenants had their own traffic engineers, and that their engineers were in support of the proposed street improvements and traffic patterns. Vice -Chair Berry asked what the cost of the street improvements would be, when they would be made and how they would be phased 15 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A in. Mr. Vosper noted that the cost would be in excess of five million dollars. He noted that there would be no excavation until funding for all of the street improvements is secured. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission with concerns. She noted concern with traffic in this general area. She also expressed concern with the use of the out parcels. Mrs. Bell also noted concern with the removal of trees from the site. Commissioner Rahman asked how the earthwork involved with this plan compared to the previously approved plan. Mr. Turner noted that the earth work which would have to be done with this plan was comparable to the old plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Earnest, Mr. Turner stated that he knew of no local funding that would go into the project. Vice Chair Berry asked if the developer had letters of commitment from proposed tenants. Mr. Vosper stated that his company has been working with two anchor tenants (Dillards and Sears) and has received interest from two other anchor tenants. Vice -Chair Berry asked if Mr. Vosper's company had done a market analysis. Mr. Vosper stated that his company is satisfied that there is demand to support the project. Vice -Chair Berry asked about the building area of the commercial project recently approved on Chenal Parkway at Rahling Road. Staff responded that the total building area approved was 369,791 square feet. Vice Chair Berry noted that this development on Chenal Parkway was much further west than the Summit Mall project. Vice Chair Berry suggested that Simon Properties pay for 50 percent of a City sanctioned redevelopment plan for the University Mall area if the University Mall closes; within 5 years of the closing of the University Mall or within 10 years from the date of approval of this project. Mr. Vosper indicated support of this suggestion. Commissioner Lowry made a motion to approve the PCD subject to the requirements noted in paragraphs D and E of this report, as recommended by staff, and the following condition: If University Mall closes, Simon Properties will pay for 50 percent of the cost of a City sanctioned plan for the redevelopment of the University Mall area, 16 September 14, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: B within 5 10 years PCD. Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A years of the date of mall closing or within of the passage of the Summit Mall - Revised The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nunnley. The motion was discussed. Mr. Turner asked if the motion included depth of excavation and retaining wall height. Commissioner Lowry stated that the motion included these issues. Mr. Lawson noted that the restricted uses for the out parcels should be included in the motion. Commissioner Lowry stated that the Camp Aldersgate provisions should be included in the motion as a staff suggestion. Mr. Spivey, of Camp Aldersgate, stated that he did not want the Commission to place conditions on the project which were beyond the Commission's authority. Commissioner Lowry withdrew his motion. Commissioner Nunnley stated that he would not withdraw his second to the motion. Chair Adcock stated that she had unanswered questions and needed additional discussion. Commissioner Lowry asked about a deferral. Mr. Vosper indicated that the project was on a tight schedule and he would prefer a vote. Commissioner Faust noted that the Public Works issues had been resolved, including the excavation and retaining wall issues. Chair Adcock asked additional questions about the project. She asked if studies had been done on the effect of the project on nearby subdivisions and the central city. Mr. Lawson stated that no studies had been done. He stated that there had been adequate notification of the project. He stated that surrounding property owners and neighborhood associations were notified and that there was additional coverage in the print media. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not to proceed with the previous motion. Chair Adcock called for a vote on the previous motion. The motion passed with a vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays and 1 abstention (Allen). 17 Carney, Dana From: Moore, Bruce Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:13 AM To: Carpenter, Tom; Carney, Dana Cc: Mann, Bill; Turner, Bob; Beck, Steve Subject: RE: Repeal ordinance for the Summit Mall Revised PC I concur with this approach. Bruce -----Original Message ----- From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:40 AM To: Carney, Dana Cc: Mann, Bill; Moore, Bruce; Turner, Bob; Beck, Steve Subject: RE: Repeal ordinance for the Summit Mall Revised PC Dear Dana, That is the $64,000 question. I think it goes to PCD and they could apply for an amendment and go through the process making an argument based upon laches in light of the time for the court case. The plaintiffs say that it reverts to R-2, 0-2. I don't agree. But, instead of saying something in the ordinance, I think we will let the parties make that argument in the future and then deal with it. At least that is my thought for the moment. Tom -----Original Message ----- From: Carney, Dana Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:46 AM To: Carpenter, Tom; Wood, Nancy; Hanna, Ward Cc: Moore, Bruce; Turner, Bob; Mann, Bill; Beck, Steve Subject: RE: Repeal ordinance for the Summit Mall Revised PC Would this not return the property to the earlier PCD, which, although it would no longer be valid, would still be on the map? It seems there should be another section which revokes the original PCD. Dana -----Original Message ----- From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:49 PM To: Wood, Nancy; Hanna, Ward Cc: Moore, Bruce; Turner, Bob; Mann, Bill; Beck, Steve; Carney, Dana Subject: Repeal ordinance for the Summit Mall Revised PC << File: summitord.220.doc >> Please see the ordinance that I have prepared to repeal the Summit Mall Revised PCD. This does not contain any language about maintaining some kind of PCD status for the property. I am not sure that we can do that. If there is an interest in adding such a section, please let me know. 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) Carney, Dana From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 1:49 PM To: Wood, Nancy; Hanna, Ward Cc: Moore, Bruce; Turner, Bob; Mann, Bill; Beck, Steve; Carney, Dana Subject: Repeal ordinance for the Summit Mall Revised PC 9� summitord.220.doc Please see the ordinance that I have prepared to repeal the Summit Mall Revised PCD. This does not contain any language about maintaining some kind of PCD status for the property. I am not sure that we can do that. If there is an interest in adding such a section, please let me know. 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) I Pa ORDINANCE NO. 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 (Z -4923-A); AND FOR OTHER 7 PURPOSES. 8 9 WHEREAS, the Board passed Little Rock, Ark., Ordinance No. 18,456 ("LRO 10 18,456") 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 WILLIAMS 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 18 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 18,456 (Summit Mall -Revised PCD) 1 2001-2246, Pulaski Circuit [171111, and the statements of the SIMON 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 8 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 in 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 18 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. IJ 2001-2246, Pulaski Circuit [1711 since the 24 election would be moot because the developer has stated indicated that it will not timely build 25 the development as set forth in the ordinance, therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and 26 this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage. 27 PASSED: February 24, 2004 [PAGE 2 OF 3] Ordinance Repeal of LRO 18,456 (Summit Mall -Revised PCD) 1 ATTEST: APPROVED: 2 3 4 Nancy Wood, City Clerk 5 APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: 6 7 8 Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attorney 9 H 10 H 11 H 12 H 13 H 14 H 15 H 16 H 17 H 18 H 19 H 20 H 21 H 22 H 23 H 24 H 25 H 26 H 27 H [PAGE 3 OF 3] Ordinance Repeal of LRO 18,456 (Summit Mall -Revised PCD) Jim Dailey, Mayor Carney, Dana From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 11:03 AM To: Moore, Bruce; Dailey, Jim Cc: Turner, Bob; Beck, Steve; Carney, Dana Subject: Summit Mall Hearing The hearing was held this morning on the calling of an election to repeal the Summit Mall ordinance. The Court is probably going to enter an order that requires an election in 60 days if the City does not repeal the ordinance within 3o days. During the hearing I mentioned that the repeal is on the agenda for a reconvened meeting on Tuesday. I also noted that the City is not sure about the repeal ordinance since there are some questions about whether the property reverts automatically to R-2, 0-2, or whether it can be maintained as a presumptive PCD. I noted that there is some concern on the City's part about a potential Takings argument. In any event, I mentioned that the Court did not have that issue before it. The plaintiffs complained that this was some kind of trickery. I objected to that characterization and noted the concerns that we had. The Court seemed to agree that it did not think that it could deal with anything but the election issue, and that if the election issue were decided by repeal of the ordinance that would end the inquiry. I also noted that the ordinance referred said that it was changing the classification from PCD to Revised -PCD, and I was really not sure what would happen if a referendum was successful. This latter issue may not have played well although I tried to explain to Cindy Murphy that we are not playing games, we are just assuring that in repealing this ordinance, which the Board wants to do, we do not create several millions of dollars in liability to the City for a Takings. And, I noted that there had already been one claim in this lawsuit against the City for a Takings. The Court said that it had not really even considered this issue and wanted to think about it some more. So, I suspect that an order will be issued as noted sometime later today. In the meantime, I will work on the other issues noted above with Planning and draft an appropriate ordinance and memorandum for the Board's consideration. 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) 02/17/04 08:58 FAY: 501 771 4498 LR CITY -MANAGER'S OFFICE 4 PLANNING lao01/001 -- oc� r c:.v i u � L �k7 J r 144= N. M2/02 " ,W* SL OPER For Further iofatsoati0X6 pLcza a Contact: I e; Moms, Siataa F oDerry Qrovp: (317) 363-7711 SIM- ON TO EXPLORE OPTIONS FOR SUlbOUT SITE REFERENDUM NOT NEEDED INDIANA.FOLIS, IN' Tebruary 16, 2004] - Simon Property Group, Inc. (NYSE:Sr6) announced today that it would. continue to exFlore all possible optiOas for Elle sale or development of the S'Ummit site in Liltle Rock, AR - SPG has advised the city of Little Rock fhar it will not proceed with the develop=ntplan which has been subjcet to litigation and a)i. impeerxding referendum, "UTe are unee,ttain at this tirrle about the best use for this site: - said Tom Schneider, an executive vice president of developrmat at Sp,a, "We are certain, however, that %a vaunt to save the City tete time and :xpense of conducting a referendum on a design which will not be bulli. tender any cireun7stances. " SPG has been a long-tirm leader in area retail. University �i:E.A w=th 565000 feet of leasable space, opened in 1967. McCain Mall, wiLb 777,000 of leasable space, opened in 1973. Approximate) v 3,500 people are enVloyed at the two properties and together over the past re!1;•ears, SFG has Temirted Ova $10.5 million in real estate taxes and business F.ersonal property taxes to Pulaski County. „x Simon Property Group, Inc. (N'YSE:S.PG}, headquartered. 3r: Indianapolis, Indiana, is a real estate investment trust engaged in the ownership and managerr"'Ot Of incaue�prOduciing properties, primarily regional malls and cornmunity shopping centers. Through its subsidiary F;arrw=hips, it currently owns Or 13as act interest in 247 prop=Ties containing an aggregate Of 191 million square feet of gross leasable arca in 37 states, as yell as Ownership interests in other real estate assets In North �Lnicrica- The Con'spany holds interests in 46 assets in Europe (in Fra -we, Italy and Poland). Ad.ditionul Simon property Group infor_nation is available at www-simon-coln. TrJTRL PRaE..32 r 02/16/04 MON 10 02 MTX/RX NO 91001 March 11, 2004 ITEM NO.: 36 NAME: Summit Mall Revised PCD Time Extension Request FILE NO.: Z -4923-A LOCATION: On the Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and 1-430 DEVELOPER: Summit Mall Co., LLC & Construction Developers, Inc. c/o Simon Development Group 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 FNrINFFR- McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 97 Acres CURRENT ZONING: ALLOWED USES: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 PCD FT. NEW STREET: 0 Commercial — Shopping Mall The applicant submitted a letter dated February 24, 2004, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of this request. March 11, 2004 ITEM NO.: 36 NAME: Summit Mall Revised PCD Time Extension Request FILE NO.: Z -4923-A LOCATION: On the Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and 1-430 DEVELOPER: Summit Mall Co., LLC & Construction Developers, Inc. c/o Simon Development Group 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 ENGINEER: McGetrick and McGetrick Engineers 319 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 AREA: 97 Acres CURRENT ZONING: NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES: Commercial — Shopping Mall The applicant submitted a letter dated February 24, 2004, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff is supportive of this request. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 11, 2004) The applicant was present representing the request. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the item indicating the applicant had submitted a letter dated February 24, 2004, requesting this item be withdrawn from consideration. Staff stated they were supportive of the request. Ms. Kathlean Oleson representing the League of Women's Voters of Pulaski County questioned the zoning status of the proposed site. Ms. Cindy Dawson, Deputy City Attorney, stated she was unable to answer the question at this time. She stated the site had been under litigation and she was not one of the litigator's for the case. She stated she would have to defer all question to Mr. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney. Ms. Olsen stated once Mr. Carpenter had completed his review she felt the decision should be made public through announcement at a Board of Directors meeting or a Planning Commission Public Hearing. March 11, 2004 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 36 Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4923-A There was no further discussion of the item. The item was placed on the Consent Agenda and approved as presented by staff by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absent. 2 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A NAME: Summit Mall - Revised PCD LOCATION: Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and Interstate 430 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Summit Mall Co., LLC McGetrick and McGetrick & Construction Developers, Inc. 219 East Markham St., Ste. 202 c/o Simon Development Group Little Rock, AR 72201 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 AREA: 97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Commercial/Office Mixed Development PROPOSED USE: Commercial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1987-, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/0-2 to PCD, establishing the Summit Mall - Long -Form PCD. The approved site plan included a 975,000 square foot shopping mall, three (3) office buildings totaling 335,000 square feet, a 190,000 square foot hotel (250 rooms) and two (2) restaurant lease parcels totaling 20,000 square feet. A total of 5,945 parking spaces was proposed, some of which were located in a parking deck for the proposed office buildings. A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD with an entirely new site development plan. The new proposed site plan consists of the following: FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont.) 1. An 878,000 shopping mall located within the north one- half of the property. 2.An 85,700 square foot, 4,238 seat movie theatre located near the southwest corner of the property. 3.Three (3) retail/office buildings with a total area of 77,400 square feet, located between the mall building and the theatre. 4. Four (4) lease parcels/restaurant sites (32,000 square feet total) at the southeast corner of the property. 5.A lease/out parcel at the northeast corner of the property labeled as office/hotel/retail. 6. 4,734 parking spaces. 7. Three (3) access points from Shackleford Road. The proposed buildings, parking areas, drives and landscaped areas are noted on the attached site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, with varying degrees of slope throughout the property. Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west of the property, with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary. Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to the east. The property immediately south is also vacant and wooded. There is a Comcast Cable office building and tower along the west side of Shackleford Road which is surrounded by the proposed mall site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received comments and concerns from the Camp Aldersgate representatives. The John Barrow, Sandpiper and Sewer District #147 Neighborhood Associations have been notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis. 2. Redesign site to include a ring road built to commercial street standards for access to commercial activity around the site. This road should have access points designed along the route with drive spacing at not less than 250 feet on center. 3. Analyze the Shackleford/I-430 interchange capacity with and without development traffic to verify adequacy of the interchange -and recommend improvements due to development. K FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont.) E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main relocation and extension required with easements. AP&L: Underground easements will have to be negotiated at a later date when transformers are located to make a loop through the shopping center. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: On site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150/acre, plus a development fee based on the size of connections, will apply in addition to the normal connection charges. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for information regarding turning radii and fire hydrant placement. County Plannin : No Comment. CATA: CATA Route #3 serves very near this site. This location is in a key area for transit. CATA would like to discuss opportunities with the developer to incorporate a bus pullout(s) on the periphery of the site. Better pedestrian links/stronger connections within the site need to be established. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planninq Division: This request is in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial. The revision of an existing PCD is consistent with the current land use category. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan. Landscape Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. Because this property has significant variations in its grade elevations, cross sections showing the proposed method of treatment will be necessary. 4 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont. 4. Verify with plan and profile that adequate sight distance is provided at all points of access. 5. Verify with capacity analysis that all site intersections will operate at a minimum level of service of "D" during the peak hour of the generator. 6. Provide preliminary arterial lighting plan for Shackleford Road adjacent to site. 7. NPDES permit from ADEQ, including Wetland Clearance will be required. S. Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 10. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these street including 5 foot sidewalks with planned development. 11. All internal streets must be designed to commercial street standards. 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 13. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 14. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 15. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 16. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 17. Existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required. 18. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 19. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. 20. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8-283 is required. 21. A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8- 283 is required. 22. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is required. 23. Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of work is required. 3 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont.) Since this site is currently covered in trees, the City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many of the existing trees as feasible. This includes preserving trees within the street buffers. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. G. ANALYSIS: As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments, a great deal of information regarding this application is needed by staff. Some of the additional information requested by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting is as follows: 1. Discuss phasing plan. Show proposed phasing on site plan. 2. Provide grading plan with respect to the proposed phases. Note areas within the site where existing trees will be preserved. 3. Discuss street buffer treatment along I-430 and Shackleford Road. 4. Note proposed sign location(s) and provide details. 5. Show dumpster locations. 6. Provide north/south and east/west sections and elevations. 7. Show retaining walls on the site plan and provide details. 8. There should be no grading or site work prior to obtaining a building permit. 9. Staff has concerns with the proposed lease parcels at the southeast corner of the property. The previously approved site plan included only two (2) lease parcels/restaurant sites, one (1) on each side of the Comcast property. Provide proposed uses for the lease parcels. 10. Provide definite proposed use for the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. 11. Provide a very detailed cover letter regarding this project (phases, proposed uses, etc.) and addressing the design features as offered by the previous developer and the conditions agreed to with the previous approval. 12. Define proposal. Is the proposed revised PCD site plan requested for a three (3) year approval? Include this information in the cover letter. These are issues which need to be addressed by the applicant in addition to the Public Works, Utility, Fire Department, CATA and Landscape requirements and comments. 5 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont.) One of the main concerns that staff has with the proposed project relates to the phasing of the plan with respect to the overall site grading (cuts and fill, etc.). The existing contour plan as submitted by the applicant notes that the existing high point of the property is located within the northeast one-quarter of the property and the lowest point within the site is near the southwest corner of the property. The proposed contour plan shows that the high point of the property will be lowered approximately 75 to 80 feet and the low point (location of theatre building) will be raised approximately 60 feet. An overall plan for the site phasing and grading needs to be resolved, to include information on street buffer treatment and tree preservation. The effect of the proposed development on the adjacent property to the south and the Camp Aldersgate property across Shackleford Road to the east should also be discussed and resolved. The Subdivision Committee determined at its meeting on December 9, 1999 that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation of this item to the full Commission on January 6, 2000. This will allow the other commissioners to express concerns that they might have with this proposed development. Then the item would need to be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow the applicant to respond to the issues and concerns, and present additional information to staff and the Subdivision Committee (January 27, 2000). It was also discussed by the Subdivision Committee that a six (6) month time extension of the previously approved PCD would be reasonable. This is based on the fact that a deferral as requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee would cause this issue to extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this application to the February 17, 2000 Planning Commission agenda. Staff also recommends that previously approved PCD be September 18, 2000. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: the expiration date of the extended six (6) months to (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff described the proposed revised PCD site 6 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont.) plan, noting that a great deal of additional information was needed. Staff noted that this item was a candidate for deferral. There was a discussion of the project which included topics relating to phasing, grading, parking standards and the conditions approved with the previous site plan. It was noted that better pedestrian circulation needed to be provided between the mall building and the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. It was noted that a traffic impact analysis was needed. Phasing of street improvements was also discussed. Public Works representatives noted phased development to include street improvements could be supported. The grading of the site and cuts into the hillside were also discussed. The Committee ultimately decided that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation to the full Commission on January 6, 2000 in order to determine what other issues commissioners might have. Then the item would be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow time for the applicant to address staff and Commission concerns and present the plan back to the Subdivision Committee on January 27, 2000. It was also determined that a six (6) month time extension on the previously approved PCD would be appropriate, given the fact that a deferral would cause this issue to extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. The Committee then forwarded the revised PCD to the full Commission for preliminary discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff explained that as a result of the Subdivision Committee review of this item, the applicant was to make a preliminary presentation of the revised PCD at this meeting and that the item should be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda. Staff noted that there was much additional information which was needed. Staff also noted that since the application needed to be deferred, an extension of time for the previously approved PCD was in order. The previously approved PCD expires on March 18, 2000. 7 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont.) Commissioner Rahman asked that the time extension be considered first. There was a brief discussion regarding the time extension issue. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, explained the time extension issue. There was a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for the previously approved PCD (new expiration date -September 18, 2000). The motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Nunnley asked the purpose of the preliminary presentation. Staff explained that the preliminary presentation was to determine if the Commission had any additional concerns that have not been addressed by staff. Chair Adcock expressed concern with having the preliminary presentation at this time. Mr. Lawson noted that the Camp Aldersgate representatives had concerns with the proposed development that needed to be worked out. Commissioner Rector stated that the applicant should work with Camp Aldersgate and address any concerns. There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17, 2000 agenda. There was a brief discussion of the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2000) Pat McGetrick, Chuck Synder, Ernie Peters, Greg Simmons and Merle Seamon were present, representing the application. The applicants briefly reviewed the revised site plan with the Committee, noting that the most significant change in the plan was within the southeast corner of the property. The drive location was revised with the restaurants being on the south side of the drive and a landscaped lake area between the drive and the Comcast property. The applicants then discussed the phasing plan for the property. The new phasing plan limits the total clearing and excavation to be done with Phase I (cinema building and restaurants). There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of cut and fill that would be done. Mr. McGetrick noted that the maximum 8 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont.) cut would be approximately 110 feet at the highest point. He also noted that the largest amount of fill would be approximately 45 feet near the southwest corner of the property. Issues relating to grading and retaining wall construction were briefly discussed. Bob Turner, of Public Works, noted that the applicant had submitted a traffic study. He noted that Public Works had concerns related to the traffic study and was not in a position at this time to support the study. There was a general discussion of this issue. The applicant stated that the Commissioners would be provided with a copy of the study, most likely when completed to Public Works satisfaction. The applicant presented cross-sections of the proposed project. These were briefly discussed. Frank Riggins noted that Camp Aldersgate was in support of the revised site plan, but was still negotiating with the applicant on some issues (lighting, etc.). There was additional discussion of the site design. There was also discussion as to whether the applicant would be ready for a vote from the Commission on February 17, 2000. The applicants stated that an attempt would be made to resolve all of the outstanding issues and be ready for Commission action on February 17, 2000. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION -ACTION: (FEBRUARY 171 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that this item be deferred to the March 30, 2000 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 30, 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 0 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on March 23, 2000 requesting that this application be deferred to the June 22, 2000 agenda. Staff noted that the applicant, requesting a third deferral, would be required to renotify property owners within 200 feet. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 22, 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JUNE 22, 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on June 7, 2000 requesting that this application be deferred to the September 14, 2000 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. Staff noted that this would be the last deferral request supported. The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the September 14, 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. STAFF UPDATE: The applicant reviewed a revised site plan with staff during the week of August 14, 2000 and with the Subdivision Committee on August 24, 2000 (see Subdivision Committee comments below). The applicant also submitted development plan and a traffic study booklets, which were delivered by staff to the individual Planning Commissioners on August 29, 2000 for review. Staff is continuing to review the development plan and traffic study and will make a recommendation at the public hearing on September 14, 2000. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (AUGUST 24, 2000) Chuck Snyder, Merle Seamon, Pat McGetrick, Earnie Peters, Greg Simmons and John Flake were present, representing the application. The applicants presented the Committee with the 10 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont. revised site plan and explained the changes that were made. Chuck Snyder noted that the addition of a fourth anchor caused the site plan to be revised. He also noted that there had been no interest from a theatre user. In response to a question from the Committee, Mr. Snyder noted that the lease parcels along Shackleford Road would be for C-3 type uses (restaurant, specialty retail), but could include office use. Office uses for the lease parcels was discussed. There was a brief discussion relating to the amount of parking proposed. Vice -Chair Berry stated that the parking should be calculated based on the gross leasable floor area and not the total gross floor area. This was briefly discussed. The proposed excavation associated with the development plan was briefly discussed. Mr. McGetrick noted that the maximum cut would be 90 to 100 feet. The issue of retaining walls was discussed. The applicants noted that there would be retaining walls on the south side of the Comcast property and retaining walls to support the fill material along the south and west property lines. Stormwater detention was also discussed. A topic of discussion also included which trees along the south and west perimeter areas would be saved. The applicant presented cross-sections for these areas showing the proposed retaining walls. The applicant noted that if single taller walls (higher than 15 feet) were allowed, rather than multiple shorter walls, more existing trees within these perimeter areas could be saved. This issue was discussed. Bob Turner, Director of Public Works, asked about the relationship of the taller walls to I-430. Mr. McGetrick stated that he would supply the appropriate drawings to show this. There was a discussion of how the proposed site plan relates to the new proposed landscape ordinance. Mr. Flake noted that the previous site plan had to be revised very little to conform to the proposed new ordinance. Interior landscaping was briefly discussed. It was noted that more interior landscaping was needed within the parking area on the east side of the Dillards building. Bob Brown, of the Planning Staff, noted that the interior landscaping needed to be more evenly distributed in this area. 11 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont. Vice -Chair Berry noted that he would like to see plans for interior pedestrian walkways. This issue was discussed. Terri Davis, of CATA, noted that a public bus drop-off area was needed for workers and customers who would come to the site by public transit. The traffic issues were discussed. Bob Turner noted that Public Works was in the process of reviewing the traffic study. Earnie Peters reviewed the adjacent and off-site street improvements which would have to be made. The Committee asked if the developer planned to pay for all of the improvements. Mr. Snyder noted that the developer would do all adjacent and off- site improvements and had no problem with this being a condition of approval. He noted that the developer was exploring financing alternatives. Mr. Peters noted that the State Highway Department and the Federal Highway Administration would have to approve the design. The proposed project was discussed in relation to the Aldersgate property across Shackleford Road to the east. The applicants noted that they had a meeting scheduled with Camp Aldersgate representatives. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the PCD to the full Commission for resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION.ACTION: (SEPTEMBER 14, 2000) Rod Vosper, Chuck Snyder, John Flake, Merle Seamon, Pat McGetrick, Earnie Peters and Greg Simmons were present, representing the application. There was one person present with concerns. Staff described the proposed PCD site plan and noted that the applicant had made changes since the Subdivision Committee meeting. Staff recommended approval of the application subject to compliance with the requirements as noted in paragraphs D and E of the agenda report. Staff noted that the applicant had added more interior landscape areas, created a pedestrian circulation system, shown building landscaping and sign locations, and had made a commitment to provide a bus turn -out. Staff also noted that the applicant had been working Camp Aldersgate on the project. John Flake addressed the Commission in support of the project. He noted that the project would create 1,600 new construction jobs, 2,500 permanent jobs and thirteen million dollars in 12 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont.) property taxes. He noted that the developers had made a strong effort to comply with the new proposed landscape ordinance requirements. Bob Billman, of the Arkansas Heart Hospital, addressed the Commission in support of the project. He noted that the close proximity of the mall to the Heart Hospital will benefit and provide goods and services to the families and visitors of hospital patients. Bill Spivey, of Camp Aldersgate, also addressed the Commission in support of the project. He noted that the previous developer of the property had made assurances to Camp Aldersgate. He noted that Camp Aldersgate had concerns with the quality of their lake, landscaping and noise generation. He noted that the developer had provided written proposals to Camp Aldersgate which addresses these concerns. Rod Vosper, of Simon Properties, addressed the Commission in support of the project. He noted that Simon has been marketing the project to potential tenants for the past three years. Mr. Vosper explained the project. He noted that parking was provided on the site plan at a rate of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leaseable floor area. He noted that the site plan addresses a pedestrian circulation system. Mr. Vosper described the streetscape along Shackleford Road and the east elevation of the mall building. He noted that C-3 permitted uses had been requested for the out parcels, but some specific uses had been eliminated from the group of C-3 permitted uses, in response to concerns from Camp Aldersgate. He provided a list of the prohibited uses (for the out parcels) to the Commission. Commissioner Nunnley asked about a bus stop. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, noted that the developer will provide a bus turnout and has been working with Keith Jones of CATA, but the exact location of the bus turnout has not yet been determined. Commissioner Nunnley stated that he wanted a user friendly bus turnout for the project. In response to a question from Commissioner Nunnley, the use list for the out parcels was discussed. Commissioner Nunnley asked if the project hinged on Camp Aldersgate approval and asked Mr. Vosper to discuss the benefits this project will have for the City. Mr. Vosper briefly discussed these issues. Commissioner Nunnley stated that the applicant had not talked to the citizen of Little Rock as a 13 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont. whole. He further stated that if Dillards opens a store in this mall, the store in Park Plaza will close. He noted additional concern with public transit. He stated that he was concerned that the development will be exclusionary. Mr. Vosper stated that he could not speak for Dillards and their future intentions, but felt that the malls on University Avenue would remain strong. Commissioner Downing asked about the staff recommendation. Bob Turner, Director of Public Works, noted that his department was in agreement with the traffic study and the proposed street improvements. He stated that the proposed improvements will be able to handle the traffic that will be generated by the proposed project. Commissioner Earnest discussed the impact that this development will have on the area. He asked about the cost of the proposed street improvements and asked who would pay for the improvements. Mr. Turner noted that the City would pay for none of the improvements, and noted that the applicant might work with the State for funding. He also noted that the application needed to be conditioned on the developer obtaining approval from the State for the proposed interstate improvements. He stated that the Public Works requirements should be adhered to and discussed these requirements. He noted that he supported tall retaining walls along the west and south property lines, and by constructing these taller walls more existing trees will be preserved. Mr. Vosper stated that this development will be accessible to all persons and will not be exclusionary. He noted that the projected mall opening would be 2003. Chair Adcock asked if the applicant had consulted with the State Highway Department. Earnie Peters, traffic engineer for the project, stated that he has reviewed the plan with the State. He noted that the State has not yet approved the project, but he expects them to do so. He noted that federal approval is also needed and this would take 6 to 10 months. He discussed the street improvements which will need to be made according to his traffic study. Commissioner Rahman asked if all of the Public Works issues had been resolved. Mr. Turner noted that the applicant had agreed to all of the Public Works requirements. He briefly discussed 14 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont. the proposed retaining walls, and noted that Public Works supports the taller retaining walls as proposed. Mr. Vosper noted that the mall anchor tenants had their own traffic engineers, and that their engineers were in support of the proposed street improvements and traffic patterns. Vice -Chair Berry asked what the cost of the street improvements would be, when they would be made and how they would be phased in. Mr. Vosper noted that the cost would be in excess of five million dollars. He noted that there would be no excavation until funding for all of the street improvements is secured. Ruth Bell addressed the Commission with concerns. She noted concern with traffic in this general area. She also expressed concern with the use of the out parcels. Mrs. Bell also noted concern with the removal of trees from the site. Commissioner Rahman asked how the earthwork involved with this plan compared to the previously approved plan. Mr. Turner noted that the earth work which would have to be done with this plan was comparable to the old plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Earnest, Mr. Turner stated that he knew of no local funding that would go into the project. Vice Chair Berry asked if the developer had letters of commitment from proposed tenants. Mr. Vosper stated that his company has been working with two anchor tenants (Dillards and Sears) and has received interest from two other anchor tenants. Vice -Chair Berry asked if Mr. Vosper's company had done a market analysis. Mr. Vosper stated that his company is satisfied that there is demand to support the project. Vice -Chair Berry asked about the building area of the commercial project recently approved on Chenal Parkway at Rahling Road. Staff responded that the total building area approved was 369,791 square feet. Vice Chair Berry noted that this development on Chenal Parkway was much further west than the Summit Mall project. Vice Chair Berry suggested that Simon Properties pay for 50 percent of a City sanctioned redevelopment plan for the University Mall area if the University Mall closes; within 5 years of the closing of the University Mall or within 10 years from the date of approval of this project. Mr. Vosper indicated support of this suggestion. 15 FILE NO.: Z -4923-A (Cont. Commissioner Lowry made a motion to approve the PCD subject to the requirements noted in paragraphs D and E of this report, as recommended by staff, and the following condition: If University Mall closes, Simon Properties will pay for 50 percent of the cost of a City sanctioned plan for the redevelopment of the University Mall area, within 5 years of the date of mall closing or within 10 years of the passage of the Summit Mall - Revised PCD. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Nunnley. The motion was discussed. Mr. Turner asked if the motion included depth of excavation and retaining wall height. Commissioner Lowry stated that the motion included these issues. Mr. Lawson noted that the restricted uses for the out parcels should be included in the motion. Commissioner Lowry stated that the Camp Aldersgate provisions should be included in the motion as a staff suggestion. Mr. Spivey, of Camp Aldersgate, stated that he did not want the Commission to place conditions on the project which were beyond the Commission's authority. Commissioner Lowry withdrew his motion. Commissioner Nunnley stated that he would not withdraw his second to the motion. Chair Adcock stated that she had unanswered questions and needed additional discussion. Commissioner Lowry asked about a deferral. Mr. Vosper indicated that the project was on a tight schedule and he would prefer a vote. Commissioner Faust noted that the Public Works issues had been resolved, including the excavation and retaining wall issues. Chair Adcock asked additional questions about the project. She asked if studies had been done on the effect of the project on nearby subdivisions and the central city. Mr. Lawson stated that no studies had been done. He stated that there had been adequate notification of the project. He stated that surrounding property owners and neighborhood associations were notified and that there was additional coverage in the print media. There was a brief discussion as to whether or not to proceed with the previous motion. Chair Adcock called for a vote on the previous motion. The motion passed with a vote of 8 ayes, 2 nays and 1 abstention (Allen). 16 November 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 NAME: LOCATION: DEVELOPER - Austin Dev. Co. 2216 43rd Meridian, MS 39305 Phone: 601-693-2703 AREA: 97.446 acres The Summit "Long -Form PCD" (Z-4923) West Side of Shackleford Road Between I-430 and West 36th ENGINR.RR : Lawrence Beame Kober/Bellaschi. Assoc. 353 Alcazar Avenue Coral Gables,. FL 33134 ZONING: "0-2" PROPOSED USE: PCD A. Developmental Conce2t FT. NEW STREET: 0 This submittal describes plans for a mixed use development of office, hotel, and retail to be located on 97.446 acres at the intersection of Shackleford Road and I-430. A two-level retail galleria in the center of the highest level will be the focal point; and glass enclosed entrances will provide a welcome atmosphere. The developer has listed several major design features and plan components which will include: (1) Internalized ring road. (2) Two phased project with off-site improvements to be constructed in Phase I. Site grading accomplished during initial phase so that building construction during the second phase will require minimal disruption. (3) Only four points of access to Shackleford in the 3,000 linear feet of spacing, whereas the City regulations allow for ten. (4) Cut and fill has been minimized. November 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued (5) Perimeter Open Space Treatment of landscaped areas and natural buffer areas ranging in width from 50' to 1001. A true survey has been done to reflect the number and location of .large 'species of trees to be retained. (6) Intense landscaping of open space and parking in excess of City requirements. (7) Pedestrian connections between major use ares within the site and covered walkways and bridges to facilitate encouraging pedestrian movement. (8) Preservation of an approximate two acre lake as a focal point for major. office development and will serve as primary detention facility. (9) Improvements include reconstruction of Shackleford Road to a five -lane section of installation of five traffic signals - cost in excess of $1 million. (10) Less traffic inpact than an office development since it is spread out over more hours of the day. B. Quantitative Data Gross Acreage 97,446 acres Right -of -Way Dedication 2.016 acres Net acreage 95,430 acres Use Area Levels Parking Office 111,667 6 111,667 6 111,667 6 335,000 sq. ft. 6 840 Retail 975,000 sq. ft. 6 4,625 Hotel 190,000 sq. ft. 10 (type) 280 (250 room) Restaurant 20,000 sq. ft. 1 1 200 1.,470,000 2 5,945 November 3, 1987 SUBDIVISIONS Item No. 12 - Continued C. Enqineerinq Comments Will discuss at meeting D. Staff Recommendation Reserved until further information provided. The main issue involves land use and amendment of the I-430 plan. Other issues involve phasing of traffic and excavation and grading. Staff, therefore, feels that a mixed used development is compatible with the surrounding area versus the straight commercial development. The proposal represents a reasonable use of property at this highway interchange with very little long-term exposure to residential uses. The plan also includes extensive landscaping and buffering along the highway. The sit-down restaurants are not as conducive to strip commercial as the previously proposed fast food restaurants. The report on the traffic information submitted is needed from Engineering. Staff does feel that the extent of excavations and fills seems excessive. The applicant should add terracing of the parking areas. E. Subdivision Committee Review The applicant was present. Staff reported that a letter had been reviewed from Aldersgate requesting deferral until they had further time to study the situation. The engineer, Pat McGetrick, stated that they were working to develop ponds to minimize runoff to Aldersgate. Staff felt that the plan indicated excessive grading and that more terracing should be provided. SUBDIVISIONS PLA L11N M S S ON A T N The Applicant was present. The Planning Director called on Jim Lawson to make the staff presentation, and reported that City Manager Tom Dalton desired to make a statement. Mr. Dalton addressed questions that had been previously raised, concerning the involvement of the City Manager's Office in this issue. He explained that his involvement was justified on projects of this magnitude that involved multiple issues such as land use and zoning, traffic flow, transportation, aesthetics and public improvements that involved a number of City departments; and commitments close to 1.5 million dollars. His role was to coordinate the several meetings held between the City's various departments and the developer, and to ensure that the administration spoke with one voice regarding the proposal; especially since there had also been prior complaints as to the City's actual position. Mr. Lawson stated staff's recommendation as approved, subject to several agreements made by the Developer. Agreements made include: (1) Ensuring that there is no ground runoff problems that would affect Camp Aldersgate and that the water quality would be checked periodically. (2) Improve Shackleford to 5 lanes and a contribution of 1.5 million dollars to the City for the widening and 5 traffic signals. (3) Preservation of as many trees as possible. (4) No grading of the site or cutting of the trees until assurance is given that the money is available for development. The preliminary will be approved now but, before any work can be done on the site, they have to present their final plans. (5) Donation of $240,000 worth of fill materials. The City is looking at the possibilty of having an interchange built at I-430 and 36th Street. This will save taxpayers a tremendous amount of money due to the amount of dirt that has to be moved to this site. They are requiring that within 1 year or 18 months when they begin the project, the City should have the site determined so as not to inhibit the progress of their development. (6) A $10,000 cash contribution to help fund an engineering study for the interchange. The interchange is for the whole of West Little Rock since it is growing very rapidly and there is now a traffic problem on I-630, so other options need to be explored very soon. Several persons spoke in regard to the project. Those representing the project included: Mr. Webb Hubbell of the Rose Law Firm; Ron Mastriana, who represented the Developer, Larry Beame-Architectural Firm; Merle Seaman -Landscape Architect; Ernie Peters -Traffic Engineer; and Patrick McGetrick, the local Engineer. Those offering favorable comments included: Mr. Rori Hackleman, the General Manager of Roger Properties, Mr. Patrick Herndon representing Property Owners in in Pecan Lake, Colonel Glenn and the South Stagecoach area. Mr. -Doug Strock represented the Sandpiper Property Owners Association. He requested deferral. Their concerns involved traffic, Little Rock's ability to support this development, and the types of.stores to be put into the mall. Mr. Joe Davis was concerned about security and did not feel that this was a proper location for this type of development. Mr. David Worley, President of NOBLE encouraged reexamination of the traffic study; and disencouraged speedily dismissing the City's I-430 plan. Mr. James Stuckley expressed fears that Peachtree would become a thoroughfare for people wanting to get to the mall, thereby creating negative effects on Sandpiper Subdivision. Finally, a vote for approval was made and passed by a vote of 8 ayes, 1 noes, 1 absent, 1 abstention. January 6, 2000 ITEM NO.: 8 NAME: Summit Mall - Revised PCD FILE NO.: Z -4923-A LOCATION: Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and Interstate 430 DEVELOPER: ENGINEER: Summit Mall Co., LLC McGetrick and McGetrick & Construction Developers, Inc. 219 East Markham St., Ste. 202 c/o Simon Development Group Little Rock, AR 72201 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 AREA: 97 acres ZONING: PCD NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES: Commercial/Office Mixed Development PROPOSED USE: Commercial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1987, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from:R-2/0-2 to PCD, establishing the Summit Mall - Long-Form•PCD. The approved site plan included a 975,000 square foot shopping mall, three (3) office buildings totaling 335,000 square feet, a 190,000 square foot hotel (250 rooms) and two (2) restaurant lease parcels totaling 20,000 square feet. A total of 5,945 parking spaces was proposed, some of which were located in a parking deck for the proposed office buildings. The previously approved PCD has received several time extensions over the years and currently expires on March 181 2000. January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FILE NO.: Z -4923-A The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD with an entirely new site development plan. The new proposed site plan consists of the following: 1. An 878,000 shopping mall located within the north one- half of the property. 2. An 85,700 square foot, 4,238 seat movie theatre located near the southwest corner of the property. 3. Three (3) retail/office buildings with a total area of 77,400 square feet, located between the mall building and the theatre. 4. Four (4) lease parcels/restaurant sites (32,000 square feet total) at the southeast corner of the property. 5. A lease/out parcel at the northeast corner of the property labeled as office/hotel/retail. 6. 4,734 parking spaces. 7. Three (3) access points from Shackleford Road. The proposed buildings, parking areas, drives and landscaped areas are noted on the attached site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The -proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, with varying degrees of slope throughout the property. Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west of the property, with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary. Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to the east. The property immediately south is also vacant and wooded. There is a Comcast Cable office building and tower along the west side of Shackleford Road which is surrounded by the proposed mall site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received comments and concerns from the Camp Aldersgate representatives. The John Barrow, Sandpiper and Sewer District #147 Neighborhood Associations have been notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis. 2. Redesign site to include a ring road built to commercial E January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A street standards for access to commercial activity around the site. This road should have access points designed along the route with drive spacing at not less than 250 feet on center. 3. Analyze the Shackleford/I-430 interchange capacity with and without development traffic to verify adequacy of the interchange and recommend improvements due to development.. 4. Verify with plan and profile that adequate sight distance is provided at all points of access. 5. Verify with capacity analysis that all site intersections will operate at a minimum level of service of "D" during the peak hour of the generator. 6. Provide preliminary arterial lighting plan for Shackleford Road adjacent to site. 7. NPDES permit from ADEQ, including Wetland Clearance will be required. 8. Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 10. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master "Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these street including 5 foot sidewalks with planned development. 11. All internal streets must be designed to commercial street standards. 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 13. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 14. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 15. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 16. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 17. Existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required. 18. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 19. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. 20. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 3 I January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 8-283 is required. 21. A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8- 283 is required. 22. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is required. 23. Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of work is required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main relocation and extension required with easements. AP&L: Underground easements will have to be negotiated at a later date when transformers are located to make a loop through the shopping center. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: On site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150/acre, plus a development fee based on the size of connections, will apply in addition to the normal connection charges. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for information regarding turning radii and fire hydrant placement. County Planning: No Comment. CATA: CATA Route #3 serves very near this site. This location is in a key area for transit. CATA would like to discuss opportunities with the developer to incorporate a bus pullout(s) on the periphery of the site. Better pedestrian links/stronger connections within the site need to be established. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planning Division: This request is in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial. The revision of an existing PCD is consistent with the current land use category. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan. 4 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont. Landscape Issues: FILE NO.: Z -4923-A Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. Because this property has significant variations in its grade elevations, cross sections showing the proposed method of treatment will be necessary. Since this site is currently covered in trees, the City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many of the existing trees as feasible. This includes preserving trees within the street buffers. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. G. ANALYSIS: As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments, a great deal of information regarding this application is needed by staff. Some of the additional information requested by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting is as follows: 1. Discuss phasing plan. Show proposed phasing on site plan. 2. Provide grading plan with respect to the proposed phases. Note areas within the site where existing trees will be preserved. 3. Discuss street buffer treatment along I-430 and Shackleford Road. 4. Note proposed sign location(s) and provide details. 5. Show dumpster locations. 6. Provide north/south and east/west sections and elevations. 7. Show retaining walls on the site plan and provide details. S. There should be no grading or site work prior to obtaining a building permit. 9. Staff has concerns with the proposed lease parcels at the southeast corner of the property. The previously approved site plan included only two (2) lease parcels/restaurant sites, one (1) on each side of the Comcast property. Provide proposed uses for the lease parcels. 10. Provide definite proposed use for the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. 5 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 11. Provide a very detailed cover letter regarding this project (phases, proposed uses, etc.) and addressing the design features as offered by the previous developer and the conditions agreed to with the previous approval. 12. Define proposal. Is the proposed revised PCD site plan requested for a three (3) year approval? Include this information in the cover letter. These are issues which need to be addressed by the applicant in addition to the Public Works, Utility, Fire Department, CATA and Landscape requirements and comments. One of the main concerns that staff has with the proposed project relates to the phasing of the plan with respect to the overall site grading (cuts and fill, etc.). The existing contour plan as submitted by the applicant notes that the existing high point of the property is located within the northeast one-quarter of the property and the lowest point within the site is near the southwest corner of the property. The proposed contour plan shows that the high point of the property will be lowered approximately 75 to 80 feet and the low point (location of theatre building) will be raised approximately 60 feet. An overall plan for the -site phasing and grading needs to be resolved, to include information on street buffer treatment and tree preservation. The effect of the proposed development on the adjacent property to the south and the Camp Aldersgate property across Shackleford Road to the east should also be discussed and resolved. The Subdivision Committee determined at its meeting on December 9, 1999 that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation of this item to the full Commission on January 6, 2000. This will allow the other commissioners to express concerns that they might have with this proposed development. Then the item would need to be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow the applicant to respond to the issues and concerns, and present additional information to staff and the Subdivision Committee (January 27, 2000). It was also discussed by the Subdivision Committee that a six (6) month time extension of the previously approved PCD would be reasonable. This is based on the fact that a deferral as requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee would cause this issue to extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. C January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: FILE NO.: Z -4923-A Staff recommends deferral of this application to the February 17, 2000 Planning Commission agenda. Staff also recommends that the expiration date of the previously approved PCD be extended six (6) months to September 18, 2000. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff described the proposed revised PCD site plan, noting that a great deal of additional information was needed. Staff noted that this item was a candidate for deferral. There was a discussion of the project which included topics relating to phasing, grading, parking standards and the conditions approved with the previous site plan. It was noted that better pedestrian circulation needed to be provided between the mall building and the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. It was noted that a traffic impact analysis was needed. Phasing of street improvements was also discussed. Public Works representatives noted phased development to include street improvements could be supported. The grading of the site and cuts into the hillside were also discussed. The Committee ultimately decided that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation to the full Commission on January 6, 2000 in order to determine what other issues commissioners might have. Then the item would be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow time for the applicant to address staff and Commission concerns and present the plan back to the Subdivision Committee on January 27, 2000. It was also determined that a six (6) month time extension on the previously approved PCD would be appropriate, given the fact that a deferral would cause this issue to extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. The Committee then forwarded the revised PCD to the full Commission for preliminary discussion. 7 January 6, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: 8 (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff explained that as a result of the Subdivision Committee review of this item, the applicant was to make a preliminary presentation of the revised PCD at this meeting and that the item should be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda. Staff noted that there was much additional information which was needed. Staff also noted that since the application needed to be deferred, an extension of time for the previously approved PCD was in order. The previously approved PCD expires on March 18, 2000. Commissioner Rahman asked that the time extension be considered first. There was a brief discussion regarding the time extension issue. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, explained the time extension issue. There was a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for the previously approved PCD (new expiration date -September 18, 2000). The motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Nunnley asked the purpose of the preliminary presentation. Staff explained that the preliminary presentation was to determine if the Commission had any additional concerns that have not been addressed by staff. Chair Adcock expressed concern with having the preliminary presentation at this time. Mr. Lawson noted that the Camp Aldersgate representatives had concerns with the proposed development that needed to be worked out. Commissioner Rector stated that the applicant should work with Camp Aldersgate and address any concerns. There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17, 2000 agenda. There was a brief discussion of the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. 8 February 17, 2000 ITEM NO.: C NAME: Summit Mall - Revised PCD FILE NO.: Z -4923-A LOCATION: Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and Interstate 430 DEVELOPER: , Summit Mall Cho . , LLC & Construction Developers,_Inc. c/o Simon T�evGl'Pment Group 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 AREA: 97 acres ZONING: PCD FIN TNEER McGetrick and McGetrick 2191 East Markham St., Ste. 202 Little Rock, AR 72201 NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ALLOWED USES: Commercial/Office Mixed Development PROPOSED USE: Commercial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1987, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. 15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/0-2 to PCD, establishing the Summit Mall - Long -Form PCD. The approved site plan included a 975,000 square foot shopping mall, three (3) office buildings totaling 335,000 square feet, a 190,000 square foot hotel (250 rooms) and two (2) restaurant lease parcels totaling 20,000 square feet. A total of 5,945 parking spaces was proposed, some of which were located in a parking deck for the proposed office buildings. The previously approved PCD has received several time extensions over the years and currently expires on March 18, 2000. February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FILE NO.: Z -4923-A The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD with an entirely new site development plan. The new proposed site plan consists of the following: 1. An 878,000 shopping mall located within the north one- half of the property. 2. An 85,700 square foot, 4,238 seat movie theatre located near the southwest corner of the property. 3. Three (3) retail/office buildings with a total area of 77,400 square feet, located between the mall building and the theatre. 4. Four (4) lease parcels/restaurant sites (32,000 square feet total) at the southeast corner of the property. 5. A lease/out parcel at the northeast corner of the property labeled as office/hotel/retail. 6. 4,734 parking spaces. 7. Three (3) access points from Shackleford Road. The proposed buildings, parking areas, drives and landscaped areas are noted on the attached site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, with varying degrees of slope throughout the property. Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west of the property, with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary. Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to the east. The property immediately south is also vacant and wooded. There is a Comcast Cable office building and tower along the west side of Shackleford Road which is surrounded by the proposed mall site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received comments and concerns from the Camp Aldersgate representatives. The John Barrow, Sandpiper and Sewer District #147 Neighborhood Associations have been notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis. 2. Redesign site to include a ring road built to commercial 2 M February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A street standards for access to commercial activity around the site. This road should have access points designed along the route with drive spacing at not less than 250 feet on center. 3. Analyze the Shackleford/I-430 interchange capacity with and without development traffic to verify adequacy of the interchange and recommend improvements due to development. 4. Verify with plan and profile that adequate sight distance is provided at all points of access. 5. Verify with capacity analysis that all site intersections will operate at a minimum level of service of "D" during the peak hour of the generator. 6. Provide preliminary arterial lighting plan for Shackleford Road adjacent to site. 7. NPDES permit from ADEQ, including Wetland Clearance will be required. 8. Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 10. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these street including 5 foot sidewalks with planned development. 11. All internal streets must be designed to commercial street standards. 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 13. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 14. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 15. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 16. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 17. Existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required. 18. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 19. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. 20. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 3 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 8-283 is required. 21. A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8- 283 is required. 22. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is required. 23. Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of work is required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main relocation and extension required with easements. AP&L: Underground easements will have to be negotiated at a later date when transformers are located to make a loop through the shopping center. Arkla : No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: On site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150/acre, plus a development fee based on the size of connections, will apply in addition to the normal connection charges. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for information regarding turning radii and fire hydrant placement. County Planning: No Comment. CATA: CATA Route #3 serves very near this site. This location is in a key area for transit. CATA would like to discuss opportunities with the developer to incorporate a bus pullout(s) on the periphery of the site. Better pedestrian links/stronger connections within the site need to be established. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Plannina Division: This request is in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial. The revision of an existing PCD is consistent with the current land use category. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan. 4 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A Landscape Issues: Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. Because this property has significant variations in its grade elevations, cross sections showing the proposed Method of treatment will be necessary. Since this site is currently covered in trees, the City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many of the existing trees as feasible. This includes preserving trees within the street buffers. _Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. G. ANALYSIS: As noted in tAe Subdivision Committee comments, a great deal of information regarding this application is needed by staff. Some of the additional information requested by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting is as follows: 1. Discuss phasing plan. Show proposed phasing on site plan. 2. Provide grading plan with respect to the proposed phases. Note areas within the site where existing trees will be preserved. 3. Discuss street buffer treatment along I-430 and Shackleford Road. 4. Note proposed sign location(s) and provide details. 5. Show dumpster locations. 6. Provide north/south and east/west sections and elevations. 7. Show retaining walls on the site plan and provide details. 8. There should be no grading or site work prior to obtaining a building permit. 9. Staff has concerns with the proposed lease parcels at the southeast corner of the property. The previously approved site plan included only two (2) lease parcels/restaurant sites, one (1) on each side of the Comcast property. Provide proposed uses for the lease parcels. 10. Provide definite proposed use for the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. 5 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 11. Provide a very detailed cover letter regarding this project (phases, proposed uses, etc.) and addressing the design features as offered by the previous developer and the conditions agreed to with the previous approval. 12. Define proposal. Is the proposed revised PCD site plan requested for a three (3) year approval? Include this information in the cover letter. These are issues which need to be addressed by the applicant in addition to the Public Works, Utility, Fire Department, CATA and Landscape requirements and comments. One of the main concerns that staff has with the proposed project relates to the phasing of the plan with respect to the overall site grading (cuts and fill, etc.). The existing contour plan as submitted by the applicant notes that the existing high point of the property is located within the northeast one-quarter of the property and the lowest point within the site is near the southwest corner of the property. The proposed contour plan shows that the high point of the property will be lowered approximately 75 to 80 feet and the low point (location of theatre building) will be raised approximately 60 feet. An overall plan for the site phasing and grading needs to be resolved, to include information on street buffer treatment and tree preservation. The effect of the proposed development on the adjacent property to the south and the Camp Aldersgate property across Shackleford Road to the east should also be discussed and resolved. The Subdivision Committee determined at its meeting on December 9, 1999 that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation of this item to the full Commission on January 6, 2000. This will allow the other commissioners to express concerns that they might have with this proposed development. Then the item would need to be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow the applicant to respond to the issues and concerns, and present additional information to staff and the Subdivision Committee (January 27, 2000). It was also discussed by the Subdivision Committee that a six (6) month time extension of the previously approved PCD would be reasonable. This is based on the fact that a deferral as requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee would cause this issue to extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this application to the February 17, 2000 Planning Commission agenda. Staff also recommends that the expiration date of the previously approved PCD be extended six (6) months to September 18, 2000. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 91 1999) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff described the proposed revised PCD site plan, noting that a great deal of additional information was needed. Staff noted that this item was a candidate for deferral. There was a discussion of the project which included topics relating to phasing, grading, parking standards and the conditions approved with the previous site plan. •It was noted that better pedestrian circulation needed to be provided between the mall building and the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. It was noted that a traffic impact analysis was needed. Phasing of street improvements was also discussed. Public Works representatives noted phased development to include street improvements could be supported. The grading of the site and cuts into the hillside were also discussed. The Committee ultimately decided that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation to the full Commission on January 6, 2000 in order to determine what other issues commissioners might have. Then the item would be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow time for the applicant to address staff and Commission concerns and present the plan back to the Subdivision Committee on January 27, 2000. It was also determined that a six (6) month time extension on the previously approved PCD would be appropriate, given the fact that a deferral would cause this issue to extend beyond the 7 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A March 18, 2000 expiration date. The Committee then forwarded the revised PCD to the full Commission for preliminary discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff explained that as a result of the Subdivision Committee review of this item, the applicant was to make a preliminary presentation of the revised PCD at this meeting and that the item should be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda. Staff noted that there was much additional information which was needed. Staff also noted that since the application needed to be deferred, an extension of time for the previously approved PCD was in order. The previously approved PCD expires on March 18, 2000. Commissioner Rahman asked that the time extension be considered first. There was a brief discussion regarding the time extension issue. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, explained the time extension issue. There was a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for the previously approved PCD (new expiration date -September 18, 2000). The motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Nunnley asked the purpose of the preliminary presentation. Staff explained that the preliminary presentation was to determine if the Commission had any additional concerns that have not been addressed by staff. Chair Adcock expressed concern with having the preliminary presentation at this time. Mr. Lawson noted that the Camp Aldersgate representatives had concerns with the proposed development that needed to be worked out. Commissioner Rector stated that the applicant should work with Camp Aldersgate and address any concerns. 8 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17, 2000 agenda. There was a brief discussion of the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2000) Pat McGetrick, Chuck Synder, Ernie Peters, Greg -Simmons and Merle Seamon were present, representing the application. The applicants briefly reviewed the revised site plan with the Committee, noting that the most significant change in the plan was within the southeast corner of the property. The drive location was revised with the restaurants being on the south side of the drive and a landscaped lake area between the drive and the Comcast property. The applicants then discussed the phasing plan for the property. The new phasing plan limits the total clearing and excavation to be done with Phase I (cinema building and restaurants). There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of cut and fill that would be done. Mr. McGetrick noted that the maximum cut would be approximately 110 feet at the highest point. He also noted that the largest amount of fill would be approximately 45 feet near the southwest corner of the property. Issues relating to grading and retaining wall construction were briefly discussed. Bob Turner, of Public Works, noted that the applicant had submitted a traffic study. He noted that Public Works had concerns related to the traffic study and was not in a position at this time to support the study. There was a general discussion of this issue. The applicant stated that the Commissioners would be provided with a copy of the study, most likely when completed to Public Works satisfaction. The applicant presented cross-sections of the proposed project. These were briefly discussed. Frank Riggins noted that Camp Aldersgate was in support of the revised site plan, but was still negotiating with the applicant on some issues (lighting, etc.). There was additional discussion of the site design. There was also discussion as to whether the applicant would be ready for a vote from the Commission on February 17, 2000. 0 February 17, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A The applicants stated that an attempt would be made to resolve all of the outstanding issues and be ready for Commission action on February 17, 2000. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 17, 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that this item be deferred to the March 30, 2000 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 30, 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 10 .5 . March 30, 2000 ITEM NO.: C NAME: Summit Mall - Revised PCD FILE NO.: Z -4923-A LOCATION: Southwest corner of Shackleford Road and Interstate 430 F9Y5V,_#bK9)! M V ENGINEER: Summit Mall Co., LLC McGetrick and McGetrick & Construction Developers, Inc. 219 East Markham St., Ste. 202 c/o Simon Development Group Little Rock, AR 72201 115 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 97 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 FT. NEW STREET: 0 ZONING: PCD ALLOWED USES: Commercial/Office Mixed Development PROPOSED USE: Commercial VARIANCES/WAIVERS REQUESTED: None requested. BACKGROUND: On December 1, 1987, the Board of Directors passed Ordinance No. �+ 15,385 rezoning this 97 acre property from R-2/0-2 to PCD, establishing the Summit Mall - Long -Form PCD. The approved site plan included a 975,000 square foot shopping mall, three (3) office buildings totaling 335,000 square feet, a 190,000 square foot hotel (250 rooms) and two (2) restaurant lease parcels totaling 20,000 square feet. A total of 5,945 parking spaces was proposed, some of which were located in a parking deck for the proposed office buildings. The previously approved PCD has received several time extensions over the years and currently expires on March 18, 2000. March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) A. PROPOSAL/REQUEST: FILE NO.: Z -4923-A The applicant proposes to revise the previously approved PCD with an entirely new site development plan. The new proposed site plan consists of the following: 1.An 878,000 shopping mall located within the north one- half of the property.. 2.An 85,700 square foot, 4,238 seat movie theatre located near the southwest corner of the property. 3.Three (3) retail/office buildings with a total area of 77,400 square feet, located between the mall building and the theatre. 4. Four (4) lease parcels/restaurant sites (32,000 square feet total) at the southeast corner of the property. 5-.A lease/out parcel at the northeast corner of the property labeled as office/hotel/retail. 6. 4,734 parking spaces. 7. Three (3) access points from Shackleford Road. The proposed buildings, parking areas, drives and landscaped areas are noted on the attached site plan. B. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The proposed site is undeveloped and heavily wooded, with varying degrees of slope throughout the property. Interstate 430 is located immediately north and west of the property, with Shackleford Road along the eastern boundary. Camp Aldersgate is located across Shackleford Road to the east. The property immediately south is also vacant and wooded. There is a Comcast Cable office building and tower along the west side of Shackleford Road which is surrounded by the proposed mall site. C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS: As of this writing, staff has received comments and concerns from the Camp Aldersgate representatives. The John Barrow, Sandpiper and Sewer District #147 Neighborhood Associations have been notified of the public hearing. D. ENGINEERING COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS: 1. Provide Site Traffic Impact Analysis. F4 March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 2. Redesign site to include a ring road built to commercial street standards for access to commercial activity around the site. This road should have access points designed along the route with drive spacing at not less than 250 feet on center. 3. Analyze the Shackleford/I-430 interchange capacity with and without development traffic to verify adequacy of the interchange and recommend improvements due to development. 4. Verify with plan and profile that adequate sight distance is provided at all points of access. 5. Verify with capacity analysis that all site intersections will operate at a minimum level of service of "D" during the peak hour of the generator. 6: Provide preliminary arterial lighting plan for Shackleford Road adjacent to site. 7. NPDES permit from ADEQ, including Wetland Clearance will be required. 8. Shackleford Road is listed on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way to 45 feet from centerline is required. 9. Driveways shall conform to Sec. 31-210 or Ordinance 18,031. 10. Provide design of streets conforming to "MSP" (Master Street Plan). Construct one-half street improvements to these street including 5 foot sidewalks with planned development. 11. All internal streets must be designed to commercial street standards. 12. Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. 13. Stormwater detention ordinance applies to this property. 14. Easements for proposed stormwater detention facilities are required. 15. Prepare a letter of pending development addressing street lights as required by Section 31-403 of the Little Rock Code. All requests should be forwarded to Traffic Engineering. 16. Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 17. Existing topographic information at maximum five foot contour interval 100 base flood elevation is required. 18. A Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186(e) is required. 19. A Grading Permit per Secs. 29-186(c) and (d) is required. 3 March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 20. A Grading Permit for Special Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8-283 is required. 21. A Development Permit for Flood Hazard Area per Sec. 8- 283 is required. 22. Contact the ADPC&E for approval prior to start work is required. 23. Contact the USACE-LRD for approval prior to start of work is required. E. UTILITIES AND FIRE DEPARTMENT/COUNTY PLANNING: Wastewater: Sewer main relocation and extension required with easements. AP&L: Underground easements will have to be negotiated at a later date when transformers are located to make a loop through the shopping center. Arkla: No Comment. Southwestern Bell: No Comment received. Water: On site fire protection will be required. An acreage charge of $150/acre, plus a development fee based on the size of connections, will apply in addition to the normal connection charges. Fire Department: Contact Dennis Free at 918-3752 for information regarding turning radii and fire hydrant placement. County Planning: No Comment. CATA: CATA Route #3 serves very near this site. This location is in a key area for transit. CATA would like to discuss opportunities with the developer to incorporate a bus pullout(s) on the periphery of the site. Better pedestrian links/stronger connections within the site need to be established. F. ISSUES/TECHNICAL/DESIGN: Planninq Division: This request is in the I-430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan currently shows Mixed Office and Commercial. The revision of an existing PCD is consistent with the current land use category. City Recognized Neighborhood Action Plan: This area is not covered by a city recognized neighborhood plan. 4 March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) Landscape Issues: FILE NO.: Z -4923-A Areas set aside for buffers and landscaping meet with ordinance requirements. Because this property has significant variations in its grade elevations, cross sections showing the proposed method of treatment will be necessary. Since this site is currently covered in trees, the City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many of the existing trees as feasible. This includes preserving trees within the street buffers. Extra credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of 6 inch caliper or larger. G. ANALYSIS: As noted in the Subdivision Committee comments, a great deal of information regarding this application is needed by staff. Some of the additional information requested by staff at the Subdivision Committee meeting is as follows: 1. Discuss phasing plan. Show proposed phasing on site plan. 2. Provide grading plan with respect to the proposed phases. Note areas within the site where existing trees will be preserved. 3. Discuss street buffer treatment along I-430 and Shackleford Road. 4. Note proposed sign location(s) and provide details. 5. Show dumpster locations. 6. Provide north/south and east/west sections and elevations. 7. Show retaining walls on the site plan and provide details. 8. There should be no grading or site work prior to obtaining a building permit. 9. Staff has concerns with the proposed lease parcels at the southeast corner of the property. The previously approved site plan included only two (2) lease parcels/restaurant sites, one (1) on each side of the Comcast property. Provide proposed uses for the lease parcels. 61 March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A 10. Provide definite proposed use for the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. 11. Provide a very detailed cover letter regarding this project (phases, proposed uses, etc.) and addressing the design features as.offered by the previous developer and the conditions agreed to with the previous approval. 12. Define proposal. Is .the proposed revised PCD site plan requested for a three (3) year approval? Include this information in the cover letter. These are issues which need to be addressed by the applicant in addition to the Public Works, Utility, Fire Department, CATA and Landscape requirements and comments. One of the main concerns that staff has with the proposed project relates to the phasing of the plan with respect to the overall site grading (cuts and fill, etc.). The existing contour plan as submitted by the applicant notes that the existing high point of the property is located within the northeast one-quarter of the property and the lowest point within the site is near the southwest corner of the property. The proposed contour plan shows that the high point of the property will be lowered approximately 75 to 80 feet and the low point (location of theatre building) will be raised approximately 60 feet. An overall plan for the site phasing and grading needs to be resolved, to include information on street buffer treatment and tree preservation. The effect of the proposed development on the adjacent property to the south and the Camp Aldersgate property across Shackleford Road to the east should also be discussed and resolved. The Subdivision Committee determined at its meeting on December 9, 1999 that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation of this item to the full Commission on January 6, 2000. This will allow the other commissioners to express concerns that they might have with this proposed development. Then the item would need to be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow the applicant to respond to the issues and concerns, and present additional information to staff and the Subdivision Committee (January 27, 2000). It was also discussed by the Subdivision Committee that a six (6) month time extension of the previously approved PCD would be reasonable. This C March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4923-A is based on the fact that a deferral as requested by staff and the Subdivision Committee would cause this issue to extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends deferral of this application to the February 17, 2000 Planning Commission agenda. Staff also recommends that the expiration date of the previously approved PCD be extended six (6) months to September 18, 2000. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (DECEMBER 9, 1999) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff described the proposed revised PCD site plan, noting that a great deal of additional information was needed. Staff noted that this item was a candidate for deferral. There was a discussion of the project -which included topics relating to phasing, grading, parking standards and the conditions approved with the previous site plan. It was noted that better pedestrian circulation needed to be provided between the mall building and the lease parcel at the northeast corner of the property. The Public Works requirements were briefly discussed. It was noted that a traffic impact analysis was needed. Phasing of street improvements was also discussed. Public Works representatives noted phased development to include street improvements could be supported. The grading of the site and cuts into the hillside were also discussed. The Committee ultimately decided that the applicant should make a preliminary presentation to the full Commission on January 6, 2000 in order to determine what other issues commissioners might have. Then the item would be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda to allow time for the applicant to address staff and Commission concerns and present the plan back to the Subdivision Committee on January 27, 2000. 7 M March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A It was also determined that a six (6) month time extension on the previously approved PCD would be appropriate, given the fact that a deferral would cause this issue to -extend beyond the March 18, 2000 expiration date. The Committee then forwarded the revised PCD to the full Commission for preliminary discussion. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (JANUARY 6, 2000) Pat McGetrick and Rod Vosper were present, representing the application. Staff explained that as a result of the Subdivision Committee review of this item, the applicant was to make a preliminary presentation of the revised PCD at this meeting and that the item should be deferred to the February 17, 2000 agenda. Staff noted that there was much additional information which was needed. Staff also noted that since the application needed to be deferred, an extension of time for the previously approved PCD was in order. The previously approved PCD expires on March 18, 2000. Commissioner Rahman asked that the time extension be considered first. There was a brief discussion regarding the time extension issue. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, explained the time extension issue. There was a motion to grant a six (6) month extension for the previously approved PCD (new expiration date -September 18, 2000). The motion passed with a vote of 9 ayes, 1 nay and 1 absent. Commissioner Nunnley asked the purpose of the preliminary presentation. Staff explained that the preliminary presentation was to determine if the Commission had any additional concerns that have not been addressed by staff. Chair Adcock expressed concern with having the preliminary presentation at this time. Mr. Lawson noted that the Camp Aldersgate representatives had concerns with the proposed development that needed to be worked out. 8 March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont. FILE NO.: Z -4923-A Commissioner Rector stated that the applicant should work with Camp Aldersgate and address any concerns. There was a motion to defer the application to the February 17, 2000 agenda. There was a brief discussion of the deferral. The motion passed by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 nays and 1 absent. SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE COMMENT: (JANUARY 27, 2000) Pat McGetrick, Chuck Synder, Ernie Peters, Greg Simmons and Merle Seamon were present, representing the application. The applicants briefly reviewed the revised site plan with the Committee, noting that the most significant change in the plan was within the southeast corner of the property. The drive location was revised with the restaurants being on the south side of the drive and a landscaped lake area between the drive and the Comcast property. The applicants then discussed the phasing plan for the property. The new phasing plan limits the total clearing and excavation to be done with Phase I (cinema building and restaurants). There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of cut and fill that would be done. Mr. McGetrick noted that the maximum cut would be approximately 110 feet at the highest point. He also noted that the largest amount of fill would be approximately 45 feet near the southwest corner of the property. Issues relating to grading and retaining wall construction were briefly discussed. Bob Turner, of Public Works, noted that the applicant had submitted a traffic study. He noted that Public Works had concerns related to the traffic study and was not in a position at this time to support the study. There was a general discussion of this issue. The applicant stated that the Commissioners would be provided with a copy of the study, most likely when completed to Public Works satisfaction. The applicant presented cross-sections of the proposed project. These were briefly discussed. Frank Riggins noted that Camp Aldersgate was in support of the revised site plan, but was still negotiating with the applicant on some issues (lighting, etc.). March 30, 2000 SUBDIVISION ITEM NO.: C (Cont.) FILE NO.: Z -4923-A There was additional discussion of the site design. There was also discussion as to whether the applicant would be ready for a vote from the Commission on February 17, 2000. The applicants stated that an attempt would be made to resolve all of the outstanding issues and be ready for Commission action on February 17, 2000. After the discussion, the Committee forwarded the application to the full Commission. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (FEBRUARY 17, 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had submitted a letter requesting that this item be deferred to the March 301 2000 agenda. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairman placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the March 30, 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: (MARCH 30, 2000) Staff informed the Commission that the applicant submitted a letter on March 23, 2000 requesting that this application be deferred to the June 22, 2000 agenda. Staff noted that the applicant, requesting a third deferral, would be required to renotify property owners within 200 feet. Staff supported the deferral request. The Chairperson placed the item before the Commission for inclusion within the Consent Agenda for deferral to the June 22, 2000 agenda. A motion to that effect was made. The motion passed by a vote of 9 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. 10