The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZ-6532-G Application 1Area Zoning Case: Z -6532-G N Location: East of Chenal Valley DR, South of Chenal Heights CIR Ward: 5 PD: 19 0212.425 850 Feet CT: 42.12 TRS: T2N R14W25 Land Use Plan Case: Z -6532-G jV Location: East of Chenal Valley DR, South of Chenal Heights CIR Ward: 5 PD: 19 0212.25 850 Feet CT: 42.12 TRS: T2N R14W25 u -4k w- . SIL u .000 W FT DET V01I �!JME -,F T4crAvftl;r mh*tv LDPW FOR vrom VA"T! 'vATUt DEPTH A' MIN v dun .ars NOTE: 1. DECORA-WE IRON -PNCE ALONG FRONT OF - WALL F PROPERTY AND ALONG TOP OF RETAINING Z -6532-G 9 EAST OF CHENAL VALLEY DR, SOUTH PD -R OF CHENAL HEIGHTS CIR A _ > 7 � rte, � •I /_I � �/ � ., �� f •.� \4 - • �1;�,•, / K f �-r,, Y.'ffr ti . • J C �y:• '`� �C,•�r rf, �-`.. _+XT ?r, I%fes'` ,! •' f•.••�j '. �tij'�ar,� ,,, f't •. I ,`J�' -.;t'G 5' ' C •`,' ��'�� •` til ` �? Jf 7 . 1 '.� - {OII -: `•� J I �� J f ,54�i // z�s Jr bl 51 ti. � �-'Y j �•ti f 'i. T Y I+.�'_ •- • i i �� r � r I`rI �•� J . � � .yam •,; • ; ;�,. , '� • : r,I -, ,E _ rf �� `x; '�• '�I •!rI � p� ;�i�'y • i..,,. /�' rJ`�_` � f J �.;�^• -� �� ,' , ti ,�'�d ' �'' 5�r Bti s. y r r ' . w .. .. --II`, f �7• • �• � �•_' ", ,.. "•-. ... 'jam •`"�.-''��N'' . `' '•y��•' � 36i � �• • �� fff�,•j�� II J�r ti , _• •T�9 .,t Y•:�,.A��F�n .' ,A•, t•- y..� `'vep 3� � / �a .•��`1 '.i �! r 't -.�r` , � £.: .. t :Iv �� •; N TAT "'�;;� fipr. �•ca-" J66�f ��' ..1. Jnr. t Aas��5� n'' �" Eta. `—• i t... r .f f� •` •�`. _ --"'� Ir.' • � � i5�el � \}i :`� fJ :=a�'.` r. 1• i ��} ti., :l L . 113e y�. 1 � 'tai rr,.•' '`+` � .� i viz r '� r r �""•: , t".. EAST OF CHENAL VALLEY DR, SOUTH PD -R Z -6532-G OF CHENAL HEIGHTS CIR Cl - -' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIII11111111111111 2015075419 PRESENTED: 12-02-201509:47:03 AM RECORDED: 12-02-201509:53:57 AM 1 ORDINANCE NK7414e31ds of Larry Crane Circuit/County Clerk 2 PULASKI CO, AR FEE $20.00 3 AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT 4 AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TITLED 5 LOT 2 CHENAL HEIGHTS LONG -FORM PD -R (Z -6532-G), LOCATED 6 AT 16400 CHENAL HEIGHTS DRIVE, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, 7 AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE 8 ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 9 10 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, 11 ARKANSAS. 12 SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property be changed from PD - 13 R, Planned Development—Residential, to Revised PD -R: y�.►��'''r"1""""'•, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Z -6532-G: Lot 2 Chenal Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County�``�� "p . Arkansas (unrecorded), Part of the S'/z of Section 25 and Part of the NE % of 5ectx 36, T -2-N, R -14-W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particular3 _= described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Chenal Heigh; Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, said corner lying on the east right-of- way line of Chenal Valley Drive; thence S57013100"E along the south line of said Lot 1, 277.39 feet; thence N32147100"E continuing along said south line, 583.67 feet to a point on the south right-of-way line of Chenal Heights Circle; thence S57012'11"E along south right-of-way line, 280.84 feet to a point on the southerly extension of the southeasterly line of Lot 6, said Chenal Heights Addition; thence N30050'33"E along said southeasterly line, 863.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 6; thence S4305212011E, 850.0 feet; thence S21016'33"W, 550.0 feet; thence S65°12'07"W, 1,761.67 feet to a point on the said east right-of-way line of Chenal Valley Drive; thence northerly along said east right-of-way the following: (1) northerly along the are of a 1,115.92 -foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of N0804210311W, 494.56 feet; (2) N04°08'23"E, 412.10 feet and (3) northerly along the are of a 507.46 -foot radius curve to the left, a chord bearing and distance of N01°16153"E, 50.67 feet to the point of beginning, containing 38.2328 acres, more or less. C'aUfil'i'/ r r�+rn�rinnr 33 SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the 34 Little Rock Planning Commission. [Page 1 of 2] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Lot 2 Chenal Heights Long - Form PD -R (Z -6532-C), located at 16400 Chenal Heights Drive, is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until the final approval of the plan. SECTION 6. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the ordinance. SECTION 7. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. PASSED: December 1, 2015 APPROVED: 0---- ///*4(/ � Ws—a to L y, City Clerk APP AS TO LEGAL FORM: Thomas M. Carpenter, City Attor // // // // // // // // Mark Stodola, Mayor (Page 2 of 21 Area Zoning Case: Z -6532-G jV Location: East of Chenal Valley DR, South of Chenal Heights CIR Ward : 5 0 220440 880 l� eet PD: 19 CT: 42.12 TRS: T2N R14W25 Land Use Flan Case: Z -6532-G N Location: East of Chenal Valley DR, South of Chenal Heights CIR Ward: 5 PD: 19 CT: 42.12 TRS: T2N R14W25 0 220440 880 Feet EAST OF CHENAL VALLEY DR, SOUTH PD -R Z -6532-G OF CHENAL HEIGHTS CIR OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION DECEMBER 1, 2015 AGENDA Subject Action Required Approved By An Ordinance establishing Ordinance a Planned Zoning District Resolution titled Lot 2 Chenal Heights Approval Long -form PD -R, located Information Report at 16400 Chenal Heights Drive (Z -6532-G). Submitted by: Department of Planning and Development Bruce T. Moore City Mana er SYNOPSIS The request is to allow a revision to the previously approved PD -R to allow the development of 208 -units of age restricted housing located within 104 -buildings constructed in multiple phases. FISCAL IMPACT None. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested PD -R zoning. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the PD -R zoning by a vote of 11 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. CITIZEN The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed PD -R PARTICIPATION request at its November 5, 2015, meeting and there were no registered objectors present. All property owners located within 200 feet of the site along with the Villages at Wellington Property Owners Association were notified of the public hearing. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 18,163 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 20, 1999, rezoned the site from R-2 and MF -18 to PD -R to allow the establishment of a Planned Residential Development titled Arkansas Teachers Retirement Village — Long -form PD -R. The proposal included the rezoning of 71.9 acres from R-2 and MF -18 to PD -R to allow for the development of the Arkansas Teachers Retirement Village, a stepped -care retirement facility. The development would house retired persons with facilities including independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing facilities and Alzheimer facilities. A single access point from Chenal Valley Drive was proposed, with a fire lane access at the southwest corner of the property. The proposed site plan indicated a large amount of green space, which was to be undisturbed, along with a proposed lake, walking trails and a lakeside pavilion. In March of 2002, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System decided to reevaluate the project and did not develop the site as proposed. ATRS decided to proceed with excavating to the finished grade indicated and approved on the site grading plan, extending sewer lines to the site, drainage construction, seeding and erosion control, power and telephone utility crossing the site were installed underground and no additional trees were to be removed from the site except those necessary to install utilities. A restoration plan was submitted to the City for approval. The applicant adhered to City's requirements in the restoration of the site and the developer's obligations were met. A proposal was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their August 26, 2004, Public Hearing to allow two of the indicated lots to develop with the retirement village concept. The applicant proposed the development of the site with eight individual lots through a preliminary plat in conjunction with the request to revise the PD -R zoning. The applicant indicated Lot 2 would be developed as an assisted living facility. Proposed Lot 8 was indicated for garden style 2 BACKGROUND CONTINUED patio homes. The applicant also indicated all uses would remain similar to the multi -unit residential retirement facility as approved on the original PD -R. The request was approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October 5, 2004, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 19,195. Lot 8 has not developed. Ordinance No. 19,220 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 1, 2004, revised the previously approved PD -R to allow a nursing and rehabilitation center to locate on Lot 6. Chenal Nursing and Rehabilitation Center proposed a 114 -bed skilled nursing facility. The development included 90 staff positions which included Arkansas Hospice Staff. Ordinance No. 19,611 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October 17, 2006, approved a revision to the PD -R for Lot 6 to increase the number of beds allowed in the nursing home facility from 114 to 140. The site plan included the placement of 93 parking spaces to serve the facility. There were no other changes to the previously approved PD -R proposed. Ordinance No. 20,299 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on August 2, 2010, allowed the development of 18.47 acres located at the northwest corner of Chenal Valley Drive and Chenal Heights Drive as a gated residential neighborhood with 109 -units of multi -family elderly housing. The development was proposed to be enclosed by a six foot tall wall/fence with eight foot columns. The applicant is now requesting approval of a site plan to allow the development of 208 -units of age restricted housing. The site plan includes the placement of 104 - buildings each with two (2) to three (3) units. The buildings are proposed with front and rear loaded garages. The development is proposed in three phases. Access to the site is proposed as gated entry from Chenal Valley Drive as well as a secondary access from Chenal Heights Drive. 3 BACKGROUND CONTINUED The applicant has received a conditional letter from approval from Deltic Timber Corporation and from the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee. Please see the attached Planning Commission minute record and site plan for the applicant's specific development proposal and the staff analysis and recommendation. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TITLED LOT 2 CHENAL HEIGHTS LONG -FORM PD -R (Z -6532-G), LOCATED AT 16400 CHENAL HEIGHTS DRIVE, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property be changed from PD -R to Revised PD -R: Z -6532-G - Lot 2 Chenal Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas (unrecorded) Part of the S '/2 of Section 25 and Part of the NE % of Section 36, T -2-N, R -14-W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Chenal Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, said corner lying on the east right of way line of Chenal Valley Drive; thence S57°13100"E along the south line of said Lot 1, 277.39 feet; thence N32047'00"E continuing along said south line, 583.67 feet to a point on the south right of way line of Chenal Heights Circle; thence S57012'11"E along south right of way line, 280.84 feet to a point on the southerly extension of the southeasterly line of Lot 6, said Chenal Heights Addition; thence N30°50'33"E along said southeasterly line, 863.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 6; thence S43052'20"E, 850.0 feet; thence S2101613311W, 550.0 feet; thence S65012107"W, 1761.67 feet to a point on the said east right of way line of Page 1 of 3 1 2 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Chenal Valley Drive; thence northerly along said east right of way the following: (1) northerly along the arc of a 1115.92 foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of N08°42'03"W, 494.56 feet; (2) N04008'23"E, 412.10 feet and (3) northerly along the arc of a 507.46 foot radius curve to the left, a chord bearing and distance of N01016'53"E, 50.67 feet to the point of beginning, containing 38.2328 acres more or less. SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Lot 2 Chenal Heights Long -form PD -R (Z -6532-G), located at 16400 Chenal Heights Drive is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of Ordinances. SECTION 4. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby amended to the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in Section 1 hereof. SECTION 5. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until the final approval of the plan. SECTION 6. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the ordinance. Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 SECTION 7. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. PASSED: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney H H H APPROVED: Mayor Page 3 of 3 Area Zoning Case: Z -6532-G N Location: East of Chenal Valley DR, South of Chenal Heights CIR Ward: 5 PD: 19 0212.425 850 Feet CT: 42.12 TRS: T2N R14W25 Land Use Plan Case: Z -6532-G N Location: East of Chenal Valley DR, South of Chenal Heights CIR Ward: 5 0212.25 850 Feet PD: 19 NMMK7 CT. 42.12 TRS: T2N R14W25 o 0,000 CU HT, VOLUME � (53LO '-'F REOVOM MW LjIP'N POR ."Arm ocpiH d- Mw NOTE: 1, DECORA-WE IRON F' -NCE ALONG . FRONT OF PROPERTY A-INO ALONG TOP OF RETAINING WALL 0 Z -6532-G 9 EAST OF CHENAL VALLEY DR, SOUTH PD -R OF CHENAL HEIGHTS CIR c OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS BOARD OF DIRECTORS COMMUNICATION DECEMBER 2, 2014 AGENDA Subject An Ordinance establishing a Planned Zoning District titled Lot 2 Chenal Heights Long -form PD -R (Z -6532- G), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of Chenal Heights Drive. Submitted by: Department of Planning and Development SYNOPSIS FISCAL IMPACT RECOMMENDATION CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Action Required Ordinance Resolution Approval Information Report Approved By Bruce Moore City Manager The applicant is requesting to amend the previously approved PD -R for Arkansas Teachers Retirement Community and approve a site plan to allow the development of 229 -units of age restricted housing. None. Staff recommends approval of the requested PD -R zoning. The Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the PD -R zoning by a vote of 10 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed PD -R request at its October 30, 2014, meeting. There was one registered objector present. All property owners located within 200 -feet of the site along with the Villages of Wellington Property Owners Association were notified of the Public Hearing. BACKGROUND Ordinance No. 18,163 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on December 20, 1999, rezoned the site from R-2 and MF -18 to PD -R to allow the establishment of a Planned Residential Development titled Arkansas Teachers Retirement Village — Long -form PD -R. The proposal included the rezoning of 71.9 acres from R-2 and MF -18 to PD -R to allow for the development of the Arkansas Teachers Retirement Village, a stepped -care retirement facility. The development would house retired persons with facilities including independent living, assisted living, skilled nursing facilities and Alzheimer facilities. A single access point from Chenal Valley Drive was proposed, with a fire lane access at the southwest corner of the property. The proposed site plan indicated a large amount of green space, which was to be undisturbed, along with a proposed lake, walking trails and a lakeside pavilion. In March of 2002, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System decided to reevaluate the project and did not develop the site as proposed. ATRS decided to proceed with excavating to the finished grade indicated and approved on the site grading plan, extending sewer lines to the site, drainage construction, seeding and erosion control, power and telephone utility crossing the site were installed underground and no additional trees were to be removed from the site except those necessary to install utilities. A restoration plan was submitted to the City for approval. The applicant adhered to City's requirements in the restoration of the site and the developer's obligations were met. A proposal was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Little Rock Planning Commission at their August 26, 2004, Public Hearing to allow two of the indicated lots to develop with the retirement village concept. The applicant proposed the development of the site with eight individual lots through a preliminary plat in conjunction with the request to revise the PD -R zoning. The applicant indicated Lot 2 would be developed as an assisted living facility. Proposed Lot 8 was indicated for garden style patio homes. The applicant also indicated all uses would remain similar to the multi -unit residential 2 BACKGROUND CONTINUED retirement facility as approved on the original PD -R. The request was approved by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October 5, 2004, by the adoption of Ordinance No. 19,195. Lot 8 has not developed. Ordinance No. 19,220 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on November 1, 2004, revised the previously approved PD -R to allow a nursing and rehabilitation center to locate on Lot 6. Chenal Nursing and Rehabilitation Center proposed a 114 -bed skilled nursing facility. The development included 90 staff positions which included Arkansas Hospice Staff. Ordinance No. 19,611 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on October 17, 2006, approved a revision to the PD -R for Lot 6 to increase the number of beds allowed in the nursing home facility from 114 to 140. The site plan included the placement of 93 parking spaces to serve the facility. There were no other changes to the previously approved PD -R proposed. Ordinance No. 20,299 adopted by the Little Rock Board of Directors on August 2, 2010, allowed the development of 18.47 acres located at the northwest corner of Chenal Valley Drive and Chenal Heights Drive as a gated residential neighborhood with 109-Linits of multi -family elderly housing. The development was proposed to be enclosed by a six foot tall wall/fence with eight foot columns. The applicant is now requesting approval of a site plan to allow the development of 229 -units of age restricted housing. The site plan includes the placement of 78 -buildings each with two (2) to three (3) units. The buildings are proposed with front and rear loaded garages. The development is proposed in three phases. Access to the site is proposed as gated entry from Chenal Valley Dries as well as Chenal Heights Drive. Please see the attached Planning record and site plan for the development proposal and the recommendation. 3 Commission minute applicant's specific staff analysis and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A PLANNED ZONING DEVELOPMENT AND ESTABLISHING A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TITLED LOT 2 CHENAL HEIGHTS LONG -FORM PD -R (Z -6532-G), LOCATED EAST OF CHENAL PARKWAY AND SOUTH OF CHENAL HEIGHTS DRIVE, LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. SECTION 1. That the zoning classification of the following described property be changed from Revised PD -R to Revised PD -R: Part of the S '/Z of Section 25 and Part of the NE '/a of Section 36, T -2-N, R -14-W, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the southwest corner of Lot 1, Chenal Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, said corner lying on the east right of way line of Chenal Valley Drive; thence S57113'00"E along the south line of said Lot 1, 277.39 feet; thence N32147'00"E continuing along said south line, 583.67 feet to a point on the south right of way line of Chenal Heights Circle; thence S57112111"E along south right of way line, 280.84 feet to a point on the southerly extension of the southeasterly line of Lot 6, said Chenal Heights Addition; thence N30150133"E along said southeasterly line, 863.26 feet to the northeast corner of said Lot 6; thence S43152'20"E, 850.0 feet; thence S21116'33"W, 550.0 feet; thence S65°12107"W, 1761.67 feet to a point on the said east right of Page 1 of 3 I way line of Chenal Valley Drive; thence northerly along said east 2 right of way the following: (1) northerly along the arc of a 3 1115.92 foot radius curve to the right, a chord bearing and distance of 4 N08042'03"W, 494.56 feet; (2) N04108'23"E, 412.10 feet and (3) 5 northerly along the arc of a 507.46 foot radius curve to the left, a 6 chord bearing and distance of N01116'53"E, 50.67 feet to the point of 7 beginning, containing 38.2328 acres more or less. 8 9 SECTION 2. That the preliminary site development plan/plat be approved as 10 recommended by the Little Rock Planning Commission. 11 12 SECTION 3. That the change in zoning classification contemplated for Lot 2 13 Chenal Heights Long -form PD -R (Z -6532-G), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of 14 Chenal Heights Drive is conditioned upon obtaining a final plan approval within the time 15 specified by Chapter 36, Article VII, Section 36-454 (e) of the Code of Ordinances. 16 17 SECTION 4. That the map referred to in Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances 18 of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, and designated district map be and is hereby amended to 19 the extent and in the respects necessary to affect and designate the change provided for in 20 Section 1 hereof. 21 22 SECTION 5. That this Ordinance shall not take effect and be in full force until 23 the final approval of the plan. 24 25 SECTION 6. Severability. In the event any title, section, paragraph, item, 26 sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance is declared or adjudged to be invalid or 27 unconstitutional, such declaration or adjudication shall not affect the remaining portions of 28 the ordinance which shall remain in full force and effect as if the portion so declared or 29 adjudged invalid or unconstitutional was not originally a part of the ordinance. 30 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 SECTION 7. Repealer. All laws, ordinances, resolutions, or parts of the same that are inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such inconsistency. PASSED: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: 17 City Attorney 18 19 Page 3 of 3 Area Zoning Case: Z -6532-G N Location: East of Chenal Valley DR, South of Chenal Heights CIR Ward: 5 0212.425 850 Feet PD: 19 CT. 42.12 TRS: T2N R14W25 Land Use Plan Case: Z -6532-G N Location: East of Chenal Valley DR, South of Chenal Heights CIR Ward: 5 0212.425 850 Feet PD: 19 CT: 42.12 TRS: T2N R14W25 v r r �4 . ire r•-• !!t•..��•• •f`"'r •! I l~'1� is V```i, Iy rr-.. �.i J r : w �� f '", ti , r `. • f f %II ti r�E •? + C1pti. 1 ho h." 'rr„C..� "lal-- .� �'. Ill •-. S� .� �-1 •� 3 ract �� : •• !a I i('XNAe. .�� ' .• • f •f +� � �t-!'r I -•� t+ VAt •/U;lY.: J� r r+•s - •,ly•- 36� � '�f,� �� !r� ��- •� C�?f• •• �•`��-£.•}.� •ttT]g5�: �..•'.�" . ` t0.5, y.. .116 -3� � J s�� r ��`y �•/ �6� • •�� .��•`� r• +s bl� '•.s'':Y �� •• �^t,� �ti1't,_ • •�J f ! .rte � .� '� '� � � •`� ::J:�. a e d" •-r � ` �`v EAST OF CHENAL VALLEY DR, SOUTH PD -R Z -6532-G OF CHENAL HEIGHTS CIR City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 December 22, 2015 Larry Crain Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Chenal Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 Re: Z -6532-G, Lot 2 Chenal Heights Addition Long -form PD -R, located East of Chenal Valley Drive and South of Chenal Heights Circle Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find a copy of an Ordinance adopted by the Board of Directors at their December 1, 2015, Public Hearing approving the above referenced development. If you have any questions concerning this ordinance, please feel free to call me at 371-6821. Sincerely, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator taCity of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-:790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 November 9, 2015 Larry Crain Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Chenal Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 Re: Z -6532-G, Lot 2 Chenal Heights Addition Long -form PD -R, located East of Chenal Valley Drive and South of Chenal Heights Circle Dear Sirs.- This irs: This is to advise you that in connection with your request concerning the above referenced file number the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 5, 2015: Approved with conditions. X Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. Deferred to the Other - Meeting. This item will be forwarded to the Little Rock Board of Directors for final action. You or your representative will need to be present at the Board of Directors meeting to address any questions which may arise. The meeting date has tentatively been set for December 1, 2015. The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and is held in the Board of Directors Chambers, 500 West Markham Street, 2nd floor. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371- 6821. Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371.4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 August 28, 2015 Larry Crain Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Chenal Parkway, Suite 300 Little Rock, AR 72211 Re: Z -6532-G, Lot 2 Chenal Heights Addition Long -form PD -R, located East of Chenal Valley Drive and South of Chenal Heights Circle Dear Sirs: This is to advise you that in connection with your request concerning the above referenced file number the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on August 27, 2015: Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. X Deferred to the October 8, 2015 _Meeting. Other: If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator taCity of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 September 22, 2014 Larry Crain Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Financial Center Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 Re: Lot 2 Chenal Heights Long -form PD -R (Z -6532-C), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of Chenal Heights Drive Dear Sirs: This is to advise you that in connection with your request concerning the above referenced file number the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on September 18, 2014: Approved with conditions. Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. x Deferred to the October 30, 2014 Meeting. Other: If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821 _ Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Planning 723 West Markham Street Zoning and Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863 November 4, 2014 Larry Crain Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Financial Center Parkway Little Rock, AR 72211 Re: Lot 2 Chenal Heights Long -form PD -R (Z -6532-C), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of Chenal Heights Drive Dear Sirs: This is to advise you that in connection with your request concerning the above referenced file number the following action was taken by the Planning Commission at its meeting on October 30, 2014: Approved with conditions. X Recommended approval with conditions. Recommended approval as submitted. Denied your request as submitted. Deferred to the Meeting. Other: This item will be forwarded to the Little Rock Board of Directors for final action. Staff is requesting the item to be placed on the December 2, 2014, Board of Directors agenda. This date cannot be confirmed until the City Manager sets the agenda at his November 17, 2014, staff meeting. Please contact me prior to the December 2nd meeting date to confirm your item was placed on the Board's agenda. You or your representative will need to be present at the Board of Directors meeting to address any questions which may arise. The meeting begins at 6:00 pm and is held in the Board of Directors Chambers, 500 West Markham Street, 2nd floor. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 371-6821. Respectfully, Donna James, AICP Subdivision Administrator James. Donna From: Tom Russe[[-<Tom_Russell@deltic.com> Sent:Thursday, November 5, 2015 2:49 PM To: 'Larry Crain' Cc: 'Bill Spivey'; James, Donna Subject: Chenal Village Attachments: ChenalVillageACC11-4-15.pdf Larry, Attached is a digital copy of the signed agreement letter from the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee concerning the above referenced project. Thank you, Tom Chenal valley Architectural Control Committee November 4, 2015 Mr. Larry Crain Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Chenal Parkway, Ste. 330 Little Rock, AR 72223 RE: Review of Chenal Village Plans Dear Mr. Crain: Via Email: larrycrain@crainholdings.com The Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee met on Wednesday, November 4, 2015, and reviewed the plans presented by your engineer, Mr. Mike Marlar, your Landscape Architect, Ms. Cinde Bauer and yourself. Based upon these Plans and the discussions among the ACC members, the Chenal Valley ACC has determined the following: 1. The site plans dated October, 2015, sheets 1-3 are approved with the following: a) The privacy fence behind Bldg. 93 and 94 must be set off the street pavement a min. of 4'-0". b) All retaining walls must match the sample provided (Antique Brick) Canyon Slate — diamond cut and be capped as shown on the product sample board. c) The metal wrought type fencing along Chenal Valley Drive must have a brick column to terminate the run at each end or turn back a 90 degree section at each end. d) Dumpsters must be screened with brick walls and opaque doors. 2. The grading plans dated October, 2015, sheets 1-3 are approved with the following: a) Construction work must not encroach on adjacent property. b) Protect all natural and/or undisturbed areas during construction by fencing areas off from construction activity. c) The clubhouse finish floor elevation is understood to be 622.0. 3. The landscape plans dated October 3, 2015, sheets L1-7 are approved with the following: a) Add evergreen plantings along the outside of the fence next to the street behind buildings 93 and 94. A minimum of (1) shrub 30" high every 8'-0" on center. b) Add Ivy type plants along the base of the retaining wall where the wall parallels the South property line next to the clubhouse parking lot. c) Adjust tree plantings along Chenal Valley Drive where sewer line exists so trees are not planted directly over line. d) All improved areas are required to be fully l C:fierral c [,,b BC7)d Lillie Rock AR 72223 Ph. 501821-5757 irrigated. e) Side building elevations will need some landscape planting beds to screen A/C units and mechanical equipment. These planting beds must utilize evergreen shrubs in the plantings. f) Add a minimum of (9) trees in the detention area along the slopes. Trees to be a minimum of 2" caliper. 4. The architectural plans dated October 3, 2015, sheets A 1.0-1.5, A2.0-3, A3.0-3, A4.0-7, A5.0-1 are approved with the following: a) If fireplaces have chimneys a metal flue cap will be required and the chimney must be either brick or Hardie type board and batten. If using metal flue vents they must be reviewed and approved. b) The brick samples (Antique Brick) Columbus — Burlington, St. Augustine, Cane River, Brentwood, Edinburgh and Charleston are approved. c) The architectural shingle (Tamko) Heritage — Weathered Wood is approved. d) The cast stone sample (Arriscraft) suede is approved, e) It is recommended on Building Type A to separate the front porch by providing a 5'-0" planting strip at the center line and creating two smaller porches. f) There must be a minimum 30% (percent) use of each of the 3 building elevations throughout the entire development. On behalf of the ACC, thank you for your cooperation during this approval process. Any changes or deviations to these pians must be submitted and approved by the committee prior to the work taking place. Sincerely, cli� CHENAL VALLEY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE Agreed: 20 15 Larry Crain, Jr. Date cc: Donna James William Spivey ( herfal ( 'lily P(vd. L111 h, '�!Yr u 1 `2.3 111t. 501 ,ti21 S; U J J N C) C O LL U N- O N O N U O m m L N� O T J •? a) O� m N 0 m> U i 7 O O m m m aCj N p, V N L J U O a N C C .. =3 U a) a) a Qrno -L ac �� ami aU ° m3 NL c c O a D Y Z'.0 0) E -o a) = 5 a) 3>c 70-Qmm mm0�W ma°) Q,inc 3 Uc 0a)> C(D E o�)0EYcoa xLo O m a Q O > "NO N c v a w (0 y N (u O mg a x O m °' me a) ° y 0 3 baa m N- w m a) a Z O) ra F •N m- O a) 0I"O N c C a)'0 L L 0I Eo Zc ° o N'o.Zr v ° c 0= E aa) mL o a) 2rna y -o �� to cGOm3 t me m a� c E Mn y w � y 9 p m Y E> v m c c 9 o v- 0 r c O.L. m >, 5- 0)i O-0 IO rz E t) m f r U 0 0) -� U U L �-0 ° 4)-010 d•° ) 3 rnn cY m mL ro o mE m m v m 3-� w m CD (D -J a��U v m a m 3= Sm �UOm d a�a�v7 3 C: rn>� m�°moo) c: < 0)0EE c3:<o v U f6 C U -(OL) N o .0 AFL L Y U O n L 0) Q_ .E m > O C C W >i 7 0 "' N -O w 0 > a> N W 'O � O w° a!=' v flU a m aci w N a��i m Qaci °�� y� m m o vU 0 a? aD m -i-i "w0a �acar- E 0x m in - a) m= m OI L L p) O O a E N O W CL 2M oui ami (D -a > 3 m f0U Cp °� m 3=r 0) :6 aL 'O U 3 jN c 0) w m O NQ O O)cOU 7 �O �"-' O.O co- x-E- a)L6 < L m oar y oF-.0--; ° N °' cU °' m�Y v mrr° c 3 a) o ai 9° a amR ° m �N E ma. m� D m o a°'w �'m o t O O O� m O N a 0 C a� N L L L C m US L Z N O 5 C V S "�� 'pv 0) 3- o� •-EQ �� m N O Q - C Y LD (D 7 E m O m a) V � a) 'O .mU >> O Lo C N L a° m II fR U N N N C" m C a) p E T U w> me ct a�� c o 3' i� c 32 3Y m� _o0C ° ova at'�c�ca)mU�c�� iiN�ro�mo CO i 3 CD .M'- y mW U m m�i'�Q >h m y m NQ 0 v� a�Q m N a) 2 Q > a) 9 O, � m 9 0 m 9 U Y a) �j— U U E t 0 LL m O O O Emco U H a)�+m �t T Q 3 E 6' Z> U rLij co -D X 0 Q 2 o N N m as CL _M, O N C M N n 0 U m C Y0 '0 iw o o c m C O C 0 C 0 W 0 E Oaw N E 0CA 0 D OUO 7 U O U X 0'a rnw N = 0 � L U o ¢ s m x a y�F- 0 w m v 3 UC14 n p m Z 3 ova (aa�,x' en's I71w Lo 0) E E °o �a v `m Vom°p� V C m m C y N L cu m L L C w 7 w m 10 N E n�"'4= jam mpc 3r N WW c c yELU O m U 40 L m N U 'C at,a!Cc$ O C L Y L N j C d O 'Z L C O m m Q N E U¢ N 0� N O C O d 41 0 C1 E E n m w0 U V E C N N L 0 N :O d w 0) p m d °q r m w C U [C 0 9 m � M M y 0Y C � 0 3� v p v w ❑ W 'm 0 uwi oY 'Lao ESE cE ami 0x1-09 of ,E -u&) 3 � � _`o 3 'q L aC O) d E m L m C p w'> N w Y m U O n w U N p O w O +A U QC - w CD L 3 m c w c c m Q E C CUO _ 3 `m O N V D C m V m C 07 U N c C m ° S LO m s C m L rn 0 ? _ LO r E N U E Q Cls w w 7 Ln 7 N m c❑- � Lo O OI m c s 47 m U M nv m U N N r L Y w 9 U N m a L N 3 O N w w C w pt m m C1 CO= (Oq N >N x YO O Q �_ •0 N 00 m Lm'C w Y - Nm a E a= N m �U L to � .m y C Q d 9 C- p7., G L UI L W m C 7 i] ,D) O LL 0I .J W In 7 Z. 3 O N w C D .... G y O V d) 3 O In X -0 3• N U LLQ W in 7 N UI L N _ .w- '� L O 'm0 O m Ol !/1 m e E m m y C ... v ;•.� [p .= C .w '0 D �-" m 7 w w l9 ¢ c 7 x S 5 C �wh cmm m m Y -o w E N C D rn��c l` > 0) O] w p LL7 I'D O ;� V. ' V 7 U -p m w G7 N Q p C 7 m a .- m 7 O y - Q O C >' N N .0 r0-• N > Al_ S-2 E v) _ C• 5CL O COl L X '�' _ OU N C tmO N 0' C m.G C >` N .� N C L wN,- w S. N -0 n W mL Om L i'.) O•o y Y j a- 7W U CO :O N C 0) O U :_. y E C C m N@ O Q= N '? C 3" n r C m _ N N N W •rn L f0 ,C 3 N }0) cc,J •C C to O n m <} > m 0 -0 Cl y N w N ` w �' �' m 3 0 C N 10 L m W m m [6 47 SES N N (D 3 :N 0 QlC L N •7 L w C C1 Cn (n C •� a O C N f _�_ O Y O T 7 m 7 j C U W cu 0" C C L O V m O O N O O N r-+6 C 3 - 0 7 N O m n [fl C> N -0 ❑ p �«- N [0 - Q nen nW 3 c8 L Q I1 _m LnQ��wv �OHQQv o N= y�z E U m m L .2 - m L U `p m s U "0 (D Cm L' V m N U :f' @ N .w. O V c� - O N � p u p Q w L N f- � N a m 0 .0 0) <0 p N ri v L6 �O 3>N bac m z m c Q 3 0° a a La a] m m C C 0 ti U Chenal valley Architectural Control Committee October 7, 2015 Mr. Larry Crain Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Chenal Parkway, Ste. 330 Little Rock, AR 72223 RE: Review of Chenal Village Plans Dear Mr. Crain: Via Email: larrycrain@crainholdings.com The Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee met on Wednesday, October 7, 2015, and reviewed documentation received from your engineer, Mr. Mike Marlar, which included his letter dated September 18, 2015, a revised "conceptual" grading plan and site plan and a plan for the landscaped main entrance which included details of landscaping along Chenal Valley Drive, an iron fence and brick columns and plantings along Chenal Valley Drive (together "Plans"). We have also reviewed a letter dated October 6, 2015, from legal counsel for Deltic Timber Corporation which was addressed to your attorney, Mr. McKinney. Based upon these Plans, Deltic's letter and the discussions among the ACC members, the Chenal Valley ACC has determined that the grading plan and site plan represent realistic conceptual drawings for your proposed Chenal Village development. However, your application remains incomplete and final approval by the ACC of the proposed Chenal Village development is dependent upon your compliance with the Commercial Neighborhood Design Guidelines. Based upon the ACC's review of your application, the following matters must be addressed prior to any final approval by the ACC: 1. in addition to the landscaping detail for the main entrance and the portion of the Property bordering Chenal Valley Drive, you must submit a detailed landscaping plan for the entire Property covered by the Site Plan. Additional detail on the entrance landscaping must also be provided. r'Clrrrral�('�rli Bfvrf l;iltic "vcl .Uj 7.2'1-3 Pfi. 501821-57.57 2. In addition to the detail of the proposed fencing and brick columns bordering the entrance from Chenal Valley Drive, the ACC requires detailed cross-sections illustrating the appearance of the proposed retaining walls including any ornamental treatments to be used in connection with such walls or fences either on the interior or around the exterior of the proposed Chenal Village. Submit a complete fence plan, including fencing around the perimeter and any interior or privacy fencing. 3. A detailed illustration of light fixtures must be submitted and approved. 4. Although you have mentioned, in general, the types of finishes to be used on the exteriors of the buildings, ACC must have detailed descriptions including samples of siding, masonry, roofing and other materials to be used in the construction of the living units, any community buildings or clubhouses and the gatehouse at the main entrance. 5. You must submit a detailed set of floor plans for each building or type of building to be constructed on the Property confirming dimensions of each story of the buildings and the rooms therein, including staircases, driveways, patios, sidewalks and other permanent improvements to be constructed on the Property. 6. Submit architecture plans including elevations of all four sides, foundation plans and a typical wall section of each building type. 7. The location and detail of all signage, dumpsters and any other site amenities must be submitted. Final approval of the Chenal Village development cannot occur until the preceding elements of your application have been submitted to and approved by the ACC. On behalf of the ACC, thank you for your cooperation and we wish you the best of luck with the development of Chenal Village. Sincerely, CHENAL VALLEY COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE cc: Donna James William Spivey Chenatl'Chib Blvd. Litlle "vel AR 722-Z3 Th. 501821-57,57 MARLAR ENGINEERING CO., INC. ConsultirW Civil Engineers & Lund Surveyors Michael P. Marlar, P.E., PLS ENL. David Jones Jr., PLS 5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Darryl Laws, P.E. INCORPORATED North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 Jack Fleming, Hydrologist October 6, 2015 Mr. Tom Russell Attorney Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee 1 Chenal Club Blvd Little Rock, AR 72223 Re: Chenal Village Conceptual Site Plan — Landscape Plan along Chenal Valley Drive Dear Mr. Russell: In addition to our previous submittal, we are submitting the attached landscape plan for the entrance and the area fronting Chenal Valley Drive per our meeting with Tim Daters yesterday. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Marlar Engineering Co., Inc. //"-- Michael P. Marlar, PE President CC: Tim Daters Bill Spivey Donna James Larry Craine PHONE (501) 753-1987 FAX (501) 753-1993 WWW.MARLAR-ENG.COM James, Donna From: Larry Crain <larrycrain@crainholdings.com> Sent: Monday, October 5, 2015 6:15 PM To: Tom Russell Cc: Bill Spivey Qspivey@wlj.com); Cliff McKinney; Mike Marlar (mikemarlar@marlar- eng.com); James, Donna Subject: RE: Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Device Attachments: 2015.10.5 CV Chenal Valley Drive Entrance Landscape.pdf Tom, In response to your letter of September 4, 2015, Mike Marlar hand delivered on September 18th a revised site plan to you along with a letter detailing the changes made to meet ALL of the requested changes that were recommended by the ACC at the CVCN ACC meeting August 19, 2015. Additionally, the revised site plan also addresses all of the concerns of Mr. Spivey's letter dated July 15, which you and the ACC incorporated into the denial letter of September 4. I have followed up with Bill Spivey. I spoke to Bill on the phone last Thursday afternoon and he suggested that all of Deltic's concerns regarding the items outlined in his July 15, 2015 letter had been adequately addressed. He did ask that we provide landscaping details of the Chenal Valley Drive entrance to the development. Mike Marlar has developed a landscape plan based on Bill Spivey's request. Mike and I met at the site today to further study the existing conditions, specifically the significant undisturbed area along Chenal Valley Drive. Mike and I also had the opportunity to visit with Tim Daters at his office. Tim told us that the "grading plan all works" and gave us some advice on the location of the ornamental iron fence location. Based on our observation and discussion with Tim, please accept the attached landscape plan for the entrance at Chenal Valley Drive. Mike Marlar will deliver full scale colored copies to you, White Daters, Donna James and Bill Spivey tomorrow. We request that we be scheduled to meet with the ACC at its meeting this Wednesday so that we may answer any questions or resolve any concerns the ACC may have ahead of this Thursday's planning commission meeting. Can you give me a time that Mike can attend Wednesday's ACC meeting? Thanks Tom, Larry Larry Crain, Jr. Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Chenal Parkway, Ste 330 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 501-570-3700 501-529-9550 Cell LarryCrain@Crain Hold ings.Com WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW GORDON S. RATHER, 1R, JOHN R,TISDALE AVENUE, SUITE 2300 JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY 111 200 WEST CAPITOL LEE1, W LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 N.M.N.MNORTONORTON CHARLES T, COLEMAN (501) 371-0808 . FAX (501) 376-9442 EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR. GREGORY T, JONES WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS NORTHWEST ARKANSAS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER 3333 PINNACLE HILLS PARKWAY, SUITE 510 TROY A. PRICE KATHRYN A. PRYOR ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72758-8960 J. MARK DAVIS ) 479 986-0888 . FAX (479) 986-8932 LI JERRY J. SALLINGS ( WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER www.wlj.com KYLE R. WILSON J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY JUSTIN T,ALLEN Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310 MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY jspivey®wlj.com PATRICKD, WILSON Reply to Little Rock Office DAVID P. GLOVER REGINA A, YOUNG PAUL D. MORRIS GARY D. MARTS, JR. September 15, 2014 Honorable Keith Fountain, Chairman Honorable Members of the Little Rock Planning Commission Mr. Tony Bozynski Director of Neighborhoods & Planning City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Consideration of Item No. Z -6532-G Ladies and Gentlemen: ERIC BERGER P. DELANNA PADILLA CALEY B. VO JOHNATHAN D. HORTON JANE A. KIM ADR ENNE L. BAKER DAVID L. JONES W. CARSON TUCKER KRISTEN S, MOYERS ERIN S. BROGDON JEFFREY L, SINGLETON RICHARD BLAKELY GLASGOW DANA BORGOGNONI SNYDER PATRICK M. YOUNG BIANCA M. RUCKER ANTWAN D. PHILLIPS BAXTER D. DRENNON MICHAEL A. THOMPSON SETH R. JEWELL HAYDEN W.SHURGAR COURTNEY C. Mi,LARTY JAIMIE G. MOSS NEEMAH A. ESMAEILPOUR R. AARON BROOKS REBECCA H. STAHL DAVID C. JUNG SCOTT A, BURTON nr coil, r4 JOHN G. LILE ROGER A. GLASGOW FRED M. PERKINS III BRUCE R. LINDSEY JAMES R. VAN DOVER Hand Deliver We are attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation ("Deltic") and wish to bring to your attention certain background and other information relevant to your consideration of Item Z -6532-G which is before the Commission at its August 18, 2014 meeting. Background Deltic, as Seller, and the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System ("ATRS"), as Buyer, entered into a certain contract pursuant to which ATRS contracted to purchase an approximately 71.9 acre site (the "Property") for development of the Arkansas Teachers Retirement Village. In connection with the acquisition of the Property, ATRS agreed to certain restrictions on the use of the property which are found in the original Purchase and Sale Agreement dated March 31, 1228797-v1 September 15, 2014 Page 2 1999, expressly limiting the "use of the Property. . . to a multi -unit, residential retirement facility for a period of thirty (30) years from the date of closing. . ." Subsequently a memorandum was also recorded in the real property records of Pulaski County, Arkansas confirming the use restrictions placed upon the Property. As the Staff write-up indicates, the original Arkansas Teachers Retirement Village - Long form - PD -R (the "PD -R") has been amended on a number of occasions including the amendment by Ordinance No. 19,195 approved October 5, 2004, which created two public streets to serve the Property, and which preliminarily replatted the Property into eight individual lots within the PD -R. At that time the plat established a 40 foot buffer along Chenal Valley Drive and an approximately 25 foot buffer along the proposed Chenal Heights Drive. Today, Chenal Heights Drive remains the only access to the PD -R from Chenal Valley Drive for the entire Property. All of the eight lots, including the redesignated Lot 2 which is the subject of Item Z -6532-G, show access to Chenal Heights Drive and not directly to Chenal Valley Drive. ATRS abandoned its plans to create its Retirement Village on the Property but never contacted Deltic nor made any other request to remove or otherwise modify the use restrictions on the Property. Subsequently, Deltic has cooperated in efforts to harmonize proposed uses of the Property to be consistent with the original use restrictions placed upon the Property. As a result, then Lot 1 and a portion of then Lot 2 were developed as Chenal Heights Independent Living Center. Later, Lot 6 was developed as the Chenal Heights Rehabilitation Center, Lots 7 and 8 were developed as the Villas at Chenal. The uses made of each of these three properties are reasonably consistent with the original use restrictions placed upon the Property. None of these Lots directly access Chenal Valley Drive and the original Lot 1/Lot 2 was developed with the approved 40 foot setback shown in Ordinance 19,195. The Present Proposal The Applicant, Crain Family Holdings, LLC, filed a site plan seeking approval for development of the area under construction as a 241 unit retirement housing facility in multiple buildings with amenities. Subsequently, the Applicant contacted Deltic and the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee (the "ACC") for the stated purpose of seeking approval of the proposed development by both Deltic and the ACC. Applicant has proposed that it would operate the development as an elderly housing rental facility, and has preliminarily approved the form of a separate Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for this purpose. Unfortunately the information and illustrations provided to Deltic to date do not provide sufficient detail for Deltic to determine whether the proposed development meets the Design Guidelines for the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood and, therefore, the Applicant has not received Deltic's or the ACC's approval for development of the subject Property. 1228797-v1 September 15, 2014 Page 3 The Applicant's plan contemplates an entrance to the Property directly from Chenal Valley Drive. The Applicant has stressed the City's insistence upon having two entrances to its Property to insure access by emergency vehicles. Deltic acknowledges the City's insistence upon the "second entry" but believe that the primary access to the Property shall be for Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Heights Circle and not for Chenal Valley Drive. Deltic has consistently maintained that direct access to Chenal Valley Drive from the Property which is the subject of this application is inconsistent with the original PD -R as presented and approved at the time the Property was acquired by ATRS and as modified by Ordinance 19,195 in 2004. To date, Deltic has not received any firm commitments concerning such further details as construction, appearance, floor plans and other matters commonly required and reviewed by the City in consideration of matters such as this. Furthermore, because neither Deltic nor ACC have approved the proposed development, the Applicant cannot represent to the Planning Commission that if submitted in the form before the Commission today, it would be approved by either Deltic or the ACC. From the standpoint of Deltic, the application pending before the Commission today is at best premature. Deltic has identified the following design elements as among those necessary to obtaining any final approval of the proposed plan of development by Deltic: 1. Access to Chenal ValLey Drive: The original PR -D provided for primary access to Chenal Valley Drive via Chenal Heights Drive rather than direct access from Chenal Valley Drive. Subsequent modifications of the original PR -D have preserved access to the Property as set forth in the original PR -D. It is Deltic's position that access to the Property should continue to be from Chenal Heights Drive rather than directly from Chenal Valley Drive. This position is consistent with the original PR -D and the concept of a stepped care facility with its orientation to Chenal Heights Drive, notwithstanding ATRS' decision not to go forward with development of its own stepped care facility plan. Maintenance of access to the three existing facilities within the Property is along an internal axis represented by Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Heights Circle, an element which remains integral to the original PR -D concept. The City requires that there be at least two entry points to the subject Property to insure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Deltic believes that this requirement may be accomplished without a permanent or primary entry directly from Chenal Valley Drive. As with prior development plans, Deltic is willing to consider an emergency entrance from either Chenal Valley Drive or Rahling Road, or that there be more than one entrance from Chenal Heights Circle. We are not aware of any demand by the City that there be any access to the Property directly from Chenal Valley Drive and none was ever contemplated in the original PR -D approved by the City, Deltic and the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee (the "ACC"). 2. Design Standards: Deltic has reviewed the one page site plan, front and back building elevations and completed ACC application provided to us by the Applicant. These 1228797-v i September 15, 2014 Page 4 illustrations as well as the information included in the completed ACC application are helpful but do not provide a sufficient level of detail for Deltic to evaluate whether the proposed development meets the design standards for the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood. Rather than speculate about the Applicant's intentions or about whether there is adequate space to accommodate the development of the Property, Deltic offers the following brief list of areas of concern that require detailed drawings and specifications before Deltic can offer any meaningful comments: 1. Detailed Site Dimensions: The site plan Deltic has reviewed suggests a development plan for the Property, however, it is lacking in specific details including street dimensions, driveway locations, visitor parking, and details concerning specifically which units will have front or rear loaded garages. Without these particularized design elements, it is impossible for Deltic to make any determinations about whether traffic flow and other necessary design standards typically considered in the context of a development such as this can and are being met. 2. Setbacks: The original ATRS PR -D included a 40 foot setback along Chenal Valley Drive. The location of the setback is shown on the adjacent Lot 1 and while it may be the Applicant's intention that the landscaped area along Chenal Valley Drive will simply be a continuation of that 40 foot setback, this cannot be adequately determined from the site plan Deltic has reviewed. In addition, the Applicant's narrative description of setbacks for the development mentions front, rear and side yard setbacks, however, none of these are shown in detail on the site plan and therefore it is impossible to make any determination as to whether there is sufficient space in the site plan to allow for the setbacks and the proposed improvements. Furthermore, whether these setbacks are acceptable in the context of the overall plan may well depend upon what other improvements are shown in adjacent areas and the width of streets and alleyways. 3. Detention and Draina e Facilities: The original PR -D provided for a significant detention basin in the upper left hand corner of the site plan. However, this detention basin has been included within the area to be developed and there is no apparent alternate provision or advice concerning how detention requirements typically required for a facility of this size will be met. If alternate drainage and detention facilities are proposed, they must be shown in detail. 4. Floor Plans: The Applicant has indicated that it "do[es] not have detailed floor plans of the units." Review of detailed floor plans including dimensions confirming and verifying that those floor plans are within the scope of the overall development including all other related developmental dimensions including setbacks, streets and driveways is an essential element of Deltic's review of the application. 1228797-v1 September 15, 2014 Page 5 5. Density: It is Deltic's understanding that the Applicant intends this development to be treated under the "single family" zoning classification and while Deltic does not have specific information as to this intention, a rough calculation suggests that as presently configured, it may exceed six units per acre which may trigger an additional set of setbacks and other buffering requirements under the multi -family zoning classification. There must be a firm commitment to a specific number of units and confirmation that whether this is classified as a single family or multi -family rental facility, the development satisfies the relevant development guidelines for that zoning classification. 6. Retaining Walls; Fences and other Features: Given the topography of this site, and Deltic's experience with other development plans on the ATRS Property, it is reasonable to expect that the construction of retaining walls, fences and other structural and architectural features will be necessary in connection with the overall development of the site. Here again, although Deltic could speculate as to where these walls will be constructed, how they will be constructed, what materials will be used and whether acceptable design components may be employed, Deltic requires that the Applicant provide this information in connection with Deltic's review and approval of the proposed site development. 7. Landscapes: The Applicant's narrative description includes identification of shrubs, trees and plants they expect to use in the development, but without a detailed landscaping plan, Deltic cannot evaluate whether the plans comply with the relevant Design Guidelines. 8. Advanced Gradin : It is Deltic's understanding that the Applicant has requested a variance to advance grade the entire site. While Deltic does not object, generally speaking, to advance grading of a site, the Applicant must submit a detailed advanced grading plan for the site in connection with Deltic's review of the proposal. Conclusion In conclusion, it is not Deltic's purpose to prevent or bar development of the Property as a multifamily housing facility for retirees. However, as the developer of Chenal Valley, the grantor of the Property, which is subject to the use limitations described above, and the owner of property adjacent to the Property, Deltic cannot approve the Applicant's design for the development as presently pending before the Little Rock Planning Commission. Furthermore, the Applicant cannot represent to you how its development will be viewed by the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee because its application has not been acted upon by the ACC. For these reasons and other reasons stated hereinabove, Deltic's property interests would be adversely affected by the development standards approved by the City as shown in Item Z -6532-G and therefore Deltic concurs with the Staff recommendation of denial and 1228797-v1 September 15, 2014 Page 6 respectfully requests that further consideration of this matter be deferred until such time as the Applicant has responded to the concerns raised herein and the project is approved by the ACC. Respectfully submitted, <�IGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP hn William Spivey III Justin T. Allen Attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation JWS:jlh 1228797-v1 MARLAR ENGINEERING CO., INC. E �del Consulting Civil Engineers & Laus Laud Surveyor 5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard INCORPORATED North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 September 15, 2015 Ms. Donna Jaines Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock Re: Chenal Village PRD, Crain Family Holdings, LLC Dear Donna: Michael P. Marlar, P.E., PLS L. David Jones Jr., PLS Darryl Laws, P.E. Jack Fleming, Hydrologist We are transmitting the following documents as requested by the Planning Department and in response to Mr. Spivey's letter dated July 15, 2015, and in response to the items requested at the August 19 Chenal Architectural Review Committee's comments. As such, we are providing the following documents and responses to comments: Documents: 1) Grading Plan, 2) Site Location Plan without contours Response to Comments: Bill Spivey Letter dated July 15, 2015 (letter attached): 1. Site Plan - The site plan submitted with this letter identifies all the items requested including retaining walls, detention basin adequacy and other items as requested. We have reduced the building units from 102 to 92 in order to provide minimum side yard clearance, back yard setbacks, additional front yard setbacks, and more spacing. The grading plan addresses previous comments regarding grades along the streets in front of driveways. We are maintaining less than 2% slope along the street in front of drives which is more than adequate. We are providing side yard separation of 20', rear yard separation between units of 30', 25' of setback from street curbs (exceeds the requirement). 2. Composition of Units - The drawing shows "Walk Out" units and proposed ground elevations per the comments. Walk Out omits are identified on the plan. 3. Setback Buffer Along Chenal Valley Drive - The revised plan shows units moved further east from Chenal Valley Drive and provides more buffer and separation away from the sanitary sewer easement as requested. The retaining wall has been moved and adequate separation provided. 4. Access - Access to Chenal Valley Drive includes a detail of the landscaped median and Guard House per the Architectural Review Committee's request at our August 19 meeting. 5. Detention - Detention has been addressed. The detention basin contains over 40,000 cubic feet of detention and will handle significantly more than the Little Rock Public Works calculations (attached) require. We also show handling minor detention to the east with an additional detention basin and can handle some additional detention on the east side of the development by increasing volumes in inlet boxes, if needed. 6. Lighting - The lighting plan is included. 7. The retaining walls and details are shown. All walls will be less than 15' in height. 01 P�I PHONE (501) 753-1987 FAX (501) 753-1993 WWW.MARLAR-ENG.COM .� MARLAR ENGINEERING CO., INC. Consulting Civil Ef�g'ineers &Lund Surve}'ors Michael P. Marlar, P.E., PLS 91= L David Jones Jr, PLS 5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Darryl Laws, P.E. MATM North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 Jack Fleming, Hydrologist 8. Grading Plan - The grading plan addresses all comments in the August 15 letter including grades along streets (less than 2%), slopes along back yards for "Walk Out" units, setbacks, side yard clearance, front building lines and retaining walls. The reduction in the number of units by removing the easterly street will allow the units on the site plan to meet all previous requirements per comments. 8(a-') All these comments have been adequately addressed including setbacks, side yard clearance, back yard clearance, vertical differences from streets to finish floors. 9 (a -c) We have added additional parking as shown on the site plan. Cul de sacs meet the requirements. And, we have added a traffic circle to break up the long street along the south side of the site per the comments. Response to Architectural Review Committee Meeting, August 19 (comments attached): 1. Back yard clearance requirements meet 15', 30' between houses. 2. Detention pond maintains more than 8' of depth. 3. A traffic circle has been added. 4. The wall along Chenal Valley Drive has been moved further to the east per the comment. 5. We are provided landscaped area and guard house as per the request and shown in the detail. 6. Walk Out units will not have an elevated deck. 7. We identify Walk Out units. 8. The driveway detail has been revised per comment. 9. Phasing plan is identified. We believe the revisions on the site plan, primarily removal of the easterly street and reduction of units address all the comments in the July 15 letter and the comments from the Architectural Review Committee meeting. Sincerely, Nlarlar Engineering Co.. Inc. //U AA 14, - -, - Michael P. Marlar, PE President CC: Larry Crain 0 0 h PHONE (501) 753-1987 FAX (501) 753-1993 WWW.MARLAR-ENG.COM + LIST OF ITEMS FROM CHENAL ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE MEETING DATE: August 19, 2015 SUBJECT: Proposed Chenal Village Development Items discussed to conform to Committee's requests: 1. Back yard clearance to be 15' each yard, total 30' between houses. 2. Maintain 8' minimum depth in detention basin. 3. Show 1 traffic circle (Turn Around) to slow traffic. 4. Front Wall along Chenal Valley Drive - Provide minimum clearance from houses and keep wall off sewer easement. 5. Provide guard house and landscaped area at main entrance. 6. Houses (Walk Out Units) will not have deck in back. Detail adjusted. 7. Identify Walk Out units. 8. Adjust driveway detail to show 16' wide driveways and 5' between. 9. Show Phasing Plan. YATL WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock. AR 72201-3699 Maln 501.371.0808 Fax 501.376.9442 wlj.com John William Spivey III ATTORNEY Direct: 501.212.1310 i jspivey@wlj.com July 15, 2015 Mr. Cliff McKinney Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via Email RE: Lot 2, Chenal Heights Long Form PD -R (Z -6532-C), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of Chenal Heights Drive (the "Property") Dear Cliff. - Following our meeting with you and Mr. Crain in your offices on Thursday, July 9, 2015, at which meeting I received the letter from Mr. Rich Muller, Creative Director at EVstudio of Denver, Colorado, dated July S, 2015, I delivered copies of Mr. Muller's responses together with the "Overall Grading Plan — OGP 2.0" dated July 1, 2015, and the "Overall Site Plan — OSP 1.0") dated July 1, 2015, which, according to our discussion included additional information about the site and grading plans for the proposed Chenal Village, to Deltic's staff and engineers for review and consideration. As promised, vire now offer for your consideration, Deltic's further comments to the materials you have provided in response to Deltic's initial comments contained in our letter of June 29, 2015, 1. Site Plan. There seems to be continuing confusion as to the level of detail required for review and approval of the "Site Plan" by Deltic. Mr. Muller indicates that there may be "small adjustments" between the current version of the Site Plan and the "final construction site plan" including "landscape retaining walls, slight modifications in the site lighting, detention and grading solutions, etc." However, upon further review of the documents you delivered on July 9, 2015, there remain a number of areas which have not been adequately addressed including location and type of construction of retaining walls, depth and adequacy of detention facilities and other features we have referenced in prior correspondence and which we hope to address further in the balance of this letter. These features 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 2 must be shown and addressed prior to delivery of the "final construction site plan." We have emphasized this request repeatedly, but have yet to receive documentation which is responsive or adequate for Deltic's review purposes. 2. Composition of Units. Among the types of units described by Mr. Muller are "two (2) bedroom with walkout basement level for buildings with significant grade change" and "three (3) bedroom for buildings with significant grade change." Although we acknowledge receipt of Mr. Muller's hand drawn elevations labeled "Section A.A." and "Section B.B.", we have not received any additional elevations depicting the appearance of either of these two building floorplan variations. Ideally, the building elevations should include additional views showing the sides and rear views of the "walkout buildings", a floorpla.n showing the addition of the internal stairways, and the new total floor areas of these two types of units. (We also note the mention of additional types of units in Section 8 below, for which no elevations have been provided as well,) In addition, on the OSP 1.0 drawing, we assume that the line drawn around the rear of the units is a fence. The Site Plan should show the private open space for each unit enclosed within the fence and character and construction of the fence. Furthermore, Deltic is concerned that the fenced areas behind the units, if based upon a 3:1 slope, may not be usable, practically speaking. Please explain how these "non -usable" areas will be converted to "usable" areas. 3. Setback Buffer elan Chenal Valle Drive. The undisturbed buffer along Chenal Valley Drive has a minimum width of 20 feet which is unacceptable. The existing sewer line and the cleared sewer easement reduce the benefit of the proposed buffer. The cleared sewer easement renders the buffer shown useless as an undisturbed buffer. Buildings and improvements should be moved further east and retaining walls used to achieve the concept of a natural, undisturbed buffer. 4. Access. The rational included in Mr. Muller's letter appears to be entirely speculative, but if Mr. Crain has a professional Analysis of the trip generation and traffic distribution based upon actual conditions to substantiate or .corroborate Mr. Muller's estimated "499.2 miles per day" savings for "all residents combined!", please provide Deltic with copies of these traffic studies. Deltic believes that Mr. Muller's rationale fails to consider the distribution of traffic that would travel north and west bound on Chenal Valley Drive towards LaMarche or the traffic signal at Chenal Parkway. In fact, entering and leaving using Chenal Heights Circle may be quicker and shorter. Both Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Heights Circle are built to collector streets standards and are more than adequate for accommodating the additional traffic for the proposed Chenal Village. 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 3 5. Detention, The Site Plan shows that an existing stormwater detention facility will be filled. Mr. Muller has provided a calculation suggestinthat a 5.8 foot depth for ponding should accomplish the necessary detention requig rements for this site. However, the plan contemplates that only approximately one-eighth of the present detention area will remain open following the filling, and Mr. Muller's calculations failed to take into account that only a maximum depth of 3 feet of ponding is allowed for detention. Will the remaining detention facility provide adequate detention for upstream development? The proposed site drains into three separate drainage basins. There are no detention facilities shown on the Site Plan for the two basins to the east of the proposed development. What is the plan to provide for these two additional drainage basins? Deltic suggests that a more detailed drainage analysis would be appropriate now rather than later as proposed by Mr. Muller. If the Grading Plan is accurate, a detailed analysis could be completed in a matter of hours, not days. 6. Li. htin �_ Deltic has no additional comments on lighting beyond those set forth in our letter of June 29, 2015. Please provide the information requested with regard to the types of lighting and heights of light standards. 7. Retaining Walls Screens and Fences. The Site Plan, not the construction documents, must locate and describe retaining walls, screen walls and fences as previously stated in our prior correspondence. The Site Plan suggests the location, but not the manner of construction or appearance of certain fences. If indeed the retaining walls contemplated in Mr. Muller's letter are "minor landscape walls," what are the locations, length and maximum height of all such walls? 8. Gradina, Plan. In his response, Mr. Muller acknowledges that "more extensive cut and fill" will reduce the slope between units by borrowing material from the north central portion of the site creating additional fill in the east, west and south portions of the site. Mr. Muller goes on to explain that the "extensive use of walkout building plans" will help address the stpchanges and drawn Section evalent across the site. He references the four building types A.A. and Section B.S. as illustrative of how such walkout units will remedy these conditions. He also acknowledges, however, that there will be adjustments during the completion of the construction documents of the details of grading, including additional walkout units (apparently in addition to those already shown in the Site Plan), garden level units (which have not previously been discussed or described), stepped units (yet to be described) and swaling which is also not shown on the Site Plan at present. Finally, Mr. Muller is misinformed when he indicates that further adjustments to the Grading Plan "will be conducted on a lot by lot basis as (Mr. Crain) obtains a site specific ACC approval and City permit for each building." Although it may be necessary to obtain such building -by -building approval from the 1266836-v 1 July 15, 2015 Page 4 City before issuance of a building permit, there is no such "lot by lot" approval or review by Deltic. In fact, there is only one lot involved in the entire Site Plan! Instead, Deltic has repeatedly requested a detailed Grading Plan and, in our letter of June 29, 2015, we attempted to offer some examples of why the plan presented at that time did not meet Deltic's requirements. Without further discussion of the "walkout buildings," the "garden level units," or the "stepped units," few of which are shown by reference or location in the Site Plan and for none of which Deltic has received elevations showing what is intended by each of these designs, Deltic's engineers have once again reviewed the Grading Plan and offer further detailed comments based upon the materials provided to Deltic on July 9, 2015. These comments cover a number of issues, but all of which address one or another of what Deltic perceives to be problems with the proposed Grading Plan. These additional comments are as follows: (a) Build in side and se aration. should be a minimum of 20 feet. This spacing provides adequate room for grading, placement of mechanical units and meters and also increases the green space adjacent to the private roadway while helping to set off the wide, combined concrete driveways to the units. A 15 -foot separation may be acceptable in isolated and unique circumstances, but not for a third of the proposed buildings. (i) Building side yard separation of 15 feet is found in the following units; 7 through 17; 18 through 22; 70 through 77; 78 through 83; 96 through 97; and 100 through 102. (ii) Building side yard separation of 10 feet is found in the following units: 62 and 63; and 95 and 96. (iii) Thirty-six out of 104 buildings have side yard separations of less than 20 feet. 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 5 (b) The minimum accept rear and se aratian between units is 30 feet. This should be implemented as a "minimum," not a norm. Building rear yard separation of only 15 feet is found in the following units: 95 through 97; and 100 through 102. (c) The combination of 20 foot front building setbacks from the curb line, 15 foot building side yard separation, frontloaded double garages and sidewalk all combine to cover two-thirds of the already minimal front yard. Details showing typical driveway configuration should be provided. (d) All driveways should be at least 20 feet lon to accommodate a a.rke.d vehicle in front of the garage. To avoid vehicles blocking the sidewalk, driveways should be at least 30 feet long when on the same side of the street as the walk. Driveways less than 20 feet long are found in Buildings: 67; 84 through 85; 89; and 95 through 103. (e) The vertical difference in elevation shown between the street elevation and the finished floor elevation cannot be achieved, for the majority of the buildings shown, without constructing the garage at an elevation above or below the finished floor elevation of the building. Buildings that are on the low side of the street will be susceptible to flooding if the garage elevation is below the street elevation. Building 48 has a finished floor elevation of 642.73 feet, across the street 55 feet to the northeast is Building 67 with the finished floor elevation of 653.28 feet, which is 10.55 feet higher than Building 48. The street between the buildings is shown at elevation 649 feet on the low side by Building 48, and at elevation 651 feet on the high side in front of Building 55. Two feet of cross slope in the street is unacceptable and will not be approved. Proposing to build a structure, in a project focused on seniors, that is over six feet below the street in front of the unit and only 20 feet away is impracticable and undesirable. It would be helpful if the architect would include a cross section on the revised plans and address it in his response. (f) Building 104 is not 30 feet from the boundary of the Property. The Property line elevation behind this building is at elevation 580 feet, The street 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 6 elevation in front of this unit is at 610 feet. How is this 30 -foot difference in elevation accomplished? (g) The fill slope shown behind Buildings 40 through 44 will be approximately 50 feet in height and 140 feet in horizontal distance. What measures will be used on this large slope to prevent erasion? Will the existing Greek that meanders along the eastern boundary behind these buildings be filled in or protected? The length of creek along this boundary is over 500 feet. How will this slope be landscaped and stabilized? (h) The street in front of Buildings 99 and 100 slopes 4 feet over a distance of 15 feet. This is almost twice the maximum allowable longitudinal street grade. (i) Section B.B. shown on the revised plan shows a finished ground elevation sloping downward towards the lower building without any type of Swale shown to divert stormwater around the lower building. It also shows the finished grade of the ground above the finished floor elevation of the lower building. How will the exterior patios be accommodated in this case? With the upper building and the 30 feet of slope all draining to a structure below grade, keeping water out of the finished spaces in the lower building will be problematic. Section A.A. shows a similar situation. Where will the exterior mechanical units be located in this case? 0) Building 57 has a finished floor elevation of 637.20 feet. It is separated from Building 37 with a finished floor elevation of 616.32 feet by a 24-footwide street and 20 feet of yard on each side of the street. The difference in building elevation is 20 feet with two feet of cross slope in the street that leaves 18 feet of vertical separation over a total distance of 40 feet which is for all practical purposes a 2:1 slope. This does not allow for any provisions to drain water around the high side of Building 37. 9. Additional Comments. Examination of the materials provided on July 9, 2015, has brought to Deltic's attention additional matters which we wish to bring to your attention: (a) Will all parking be restricted to the enclosed garages? With three-bedroom units you would expect on occasion more than two vehicles per unit. No guest parking is shown or provided for on the Site Plan. Is "on street" parking anticipated? If so, the Fire Department will restrict it to one side of the street. If vehicles are parking in the drive to the unit, the rear of the vehicle will be very close to the curb line. 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 7 (b) The three cul-de-sacs shown on the Site Plan must be 27- footwide streets to comply with fire access code, not 24 feet as noted in the Site Plan. (c) Streets should be curved to break up the long, uninterrupted straight segments. In offering these responses to Mr. Muller's letter of July 8, 2015, and the additional comments based upon Deltic's most recent review of the modified and revised proposed Site Plan and proposed Grading Plan, Deltic seeks to provide Mr. Crain with guidance concerning the elements necessary to achieve approval from Deltic. We anticipate that the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee will require similar information before approving the proposed Site Plan and proposed Grading Plan. The requested information mast be included in the Site Plan and Grading Plan and may not be deferred until preparation of the final construction documents as suggested throughout Mr. Muller's letter, Should you have any questions concerning any of the matters detailed herein, feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP John William Spivey Attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation JWS/jlh cc: Mayor Mark Stodola Bruce Moore, City Manager Tom Carpenter, City Attorney Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee 1266836-v 1. ��'�'"� .Q� �e'�� GCr..�f.,5 fiS��MM K � ,'DG��;+1 �r��•a!!� . � , �i.� �o�t TO 44 14,4"d.A blsN, Ar �L 64low, CCl�!*�LL' Qr�d(2.i3 Acre ��LuMe Y117 WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Main 501.371.0606 Fax 501.376.9442 wlj.com John William Spivey III ATTORNEY Direct: 501.212.1310 1 jsplvey@wlj.com August 26, 2015 Mr. Cliff McKinney Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Lot 2, Chenal Heights Long Form PD -R (Z -6532-C), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of Chenal Heights Drive (the "Property") Dear Cliff.- On liff:On Monday, August 17, 2015, Mr. Crain delivered to me, as attorney for Deltic Timber Corporation, revised grading and site plans, together with additional information (together, the "Plans"), which we understood to be in response to my letter to you of July 15, 2015. Mr. Crain also requested that we meet with him and his engineer, Mr. Mike Marlar, to review the revised Plans. Instead, we indicated to Mr. Crain that we felt further meetings might not be necessary and that we preferred to review the revised Plans and provide a written response, rather than have a meeting before completing such a review. We explained to Mr. Crain that given that we received the Plans only 10 days prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission on August 27, that it would be difficult for us to provide meaningful comments, if at all, in advance of the Planning Commission meeting. However, Deltic's engineers have reviewed the Plans as submitted and I am offering today Deltic's comments on those Plans. With your permission, I am providing both Mr, Crain and Mr. Marlar with a copy of this letter in advance of tomorrow's Planning Commission meeting. Our comments are presented in the same order as the comments in our July 15, 2015, letter for your ease of reference. 1. Site Plan. As indicated in our July 15 letter, Deltic has repeatedly requested Plans that include the elements of a final construction site plan for the development. We acknowledge that some reference is made in Mr. Marlar's Plans to retaining walls, lighting, detention and grading, but it is also evident that further revisions and adjustments are contemplated during the course of construction. As we hope to outline in the balance of these comments, there remain a number of areas which have not been adequately addressed in the most recent revision of the Wright, Lindsey 8 Jennings LLP WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS August 26, 2015 Page 2 Plans. These features must be shown and are necessary requirements for Deltic's review of Mr. Crain's Plans. 2. Composition of Units. The Plans drawn by Mr. Marlar include elevations, or perhaps more appropriately "illustrations" of how certain units will be constructed given the grades of the site. Just as in the plans previously reviewed prepared by Mr. Muller, Deltic has not received additional elevations depicting the appearance and floor plans for the proposed "walk out buildings" including stairways connecting the upper floors to the lower walk out floors. With the proposed two-level units, what is the total proposed floor area of the unit? As we mentioned in our July 15 letter, we assume that the line drawn around the rear of the individual units in the Plans depicts a fence or wall and the enclosed space is open space adjacent to each unit. The fenced areas behind the units can hardly be considered useable when the ground slope is 3 to 1. Once again, we ask that you explain how these "non -useable" areas will be converted to useable areas. 3. Setback Buffer Along Chenal Valley Drive. Our comments with respect to the setback buffer along Chenal Valley Drive as shown in the revised Plans, remain the same as set forth in our July 15 letter. We repeat them here for your convenience. "The undisturbed buffer along Chenal Valley Drive has a ininimum width of 20 feet which is unacceptable. The existing sewer line and the cleared sewer easement reduce the benefit of the proposed buffer. The cleared sewer easement renders the buffer shown useless as an undisturbed buffer. Buildings and improvements should be moved further east and retaining walls used to achieve the concept of a natural, undisturbed buffer." 4. Access. We note here that our comments with respect to access have not changed from those expressed in our letter of July 15, 2015. The same are repeated here for your convenience of reference. The primary access to the development should be from Chenal Heights Circle, as per Deltic's previous comments. "The rational included in Mr. Muller's letter appears to be entirely speculative, but if Mr. Crain has a professional analysis of the trip generation and traffic distribution based upon actual conditions to substantiate or corroborate Mr. Muller's estimated "499.2 miles per day" savings for "all residents combined!", please provide Deltic with copies of these traffic studies. Deltic believes that Mr. Muller's 1272962-v 1 WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS August 26, 2015 Page 3 rationale fails to consider the distribution of traffic that would travel north and west bound on Chenal Valley Drive towards LaMarche or the traffic signal at Chenal Parkway. In fact, entering and leaving using Chenal Heights Circle may be quicker and shorter. Both Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Heights Circle are built to collector street standards and are more than adequate for accommodating the additional traffic for the proposed Chenal Village." 5, Detention. While the location and grading of a new detention facility is shown in the revised Plans, no details are provided on the storm drainage system or the discharge structures for either detention facility. To a great extent the comments set forth in our July 15 letter remain the same for purposes of our review of the current revised Plans. The project drains into three separate drainage basins and there are no detention facilities shown on the Plans or the drainage basin on the east side of the site. What is the plan to provide detention for this basin? We also note that the fill slope shown on the east property line will be approximately 50 feet in height and 140 feet in horizontal distance. We are concerned that there is no attention given to what measures will be used on this large slope to prevent erosion and to protect the existing creek that meanders along the eastern boundary behind these buildings. Is the plan to fill the creek or to protect the creek and, if so, how will this slope be landscaped and stabilized? 6. Lighting, Once again, Deltic has no additional comments on lighting beyond those set forth in our letter of June 29, 2015, which were reiterated in our July 15 letter. Please provide the information requested with regard to the types of lighting and heights of light standards. 7. Retaining Walls Screens and Fences. The Site Plan, as we have indicated previously, not the construction documents, must locate and describe retaining walls, screen walls and fences as previously stated in our prior correspondence. The Site Plan suggests the location, but not the manner of construction or appearance of certain fences and retaining walls. We note that the retaining walls are shown on the Plans and referenced in the response to the City of Little Rock. Are all walls shown on the plan? Wall height is not shown and, again, no details are shown with respect to the manner of construction, or the materials to be used in these walls. Furthermore, no details are shown for the fencing or drainage along the tops of the walls. 8. Grading Plan. We acknowledge that Mr. Marlar's Plans appear to be somewhat more responsive to the concerns raised in our July 15 letter. However, 1272962 -vi WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS August 26, 2015 Page 4 issues remain with respect to a number of concerns. We will attempt to address both general and more specific concerns in the balance of this section of our letter. (a) Building side yard separation should be a minimum of 20 feet. This spacing provides adequate room for grading, placement of mechanical units and meters and also increases the green space adjacent to the private roadway and helps off -set the wide, combined concrete driveways to the units. A 15 -foot separation may be acceptable in isolated and unique circumstances, but not for a third of the proposed buildings. units: (i) Building side yard separation of 15 feet is found in the following 6 through 14; 16 through 21; 59 through 62; 70 through 77; 78 through 83; 97 through 99; and 100 through 102. (ii) Building side yard separation of 10 feet is found in the following 63; and 95 through 96. (b) The minimum acceptable rear yard separation between units is 30 feet. This should be implemented as a "'minimum," not a norm. Building rear yard separation of only 15 feet is found in the following units: 95 through 97; and 100 through 102. (c) The combination of reduced front setbacks from the curb line, 15 foot building side yard separation, and frontloaded double garages result in a large percentage of the "front yard" being paved surfaces. Rear drives should be incorporated into the design to increase the landscaped front yard area and reduce the monotony of the "one double garage door" after another. 1272962-v1 WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS August 26, 2015 Page 5 (d) Streets should be curved to break up the long, uninterrupted straight segments. We also note that the long dead-end streets are not wide enough to comply with Little Rock Fire Department's requirements for. access. The ctrl -de -sacs shown on the plan are not large enough to comply with the Little Rock Fire Department's requirements for access. (e) The majority of the driveways shown on the site plan do not, conform to the details that are shown on the plan. Deltic requested that, at a minimum, all driveways should be at least 20 feet long to accommodate a parked vehicle in front of the garage. We understand that Mr. Marlar has determined that driveways should be at least 25 feet long. To avoid vehicles blocking the sidewalk, driveways should be at least 30 feet long when on the same side of the street as the walk. (f) Building finished floor elevations have not been revised to match the new grades shown for the streets. It is not possible to evaluate the relationship between the finished floor of the building as it relates to the adjacent drain, buildings or streets, unless the floor elevation is also shown. (g) Internal sidewalks and walkways are not shown on the Site Plan. Portions of the streets exceed the maximum grade allowed by ADA. Where will sidewalks be located in these areas? 9. Parkin . As noted in our July 15 letter, it is not clear whether all parking will be restricted to the enclosed garages. With three bedroom units, it could be expected that on occasion there will be more than two vehicles per unit. No guest parking is shown or provided for on the Site Plan. Will "on street parking" be permitted? If so, the Little Rock Fire Department will be restrict "on -street parking" to one side of the street. If vehicles are parking in the drive to the unit, the rear of the vehicle will be very close to the curb line in many instances. Due to the very limited amount of time allowed for Deltic's review of the revised Plans, we have endeavored to provide the best responses possible under the circumstances. We also wish to acknowledge that the City of Little Rock may have received information which was not also made available to Deltic, and therefore Deltic may not have had access to the same information reviewed by the Planning Staff. We hope it is clear from these responses that while the revised Plans have, in fact, addressed some of the concerns voiced not only in our letter of July 15, 2015, but in prior correspondence to you and Mr. Crain, many of the same comments and concerns remain with respect to the revised Plans. It is our hope that these recurring concerns will eventually be addressed and that ultimately we shall be in a position to offer Deltic's endorsement for Mr. Crain's proposed development. We are 12729G2 -v1 WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS August 26, 2015 Page 6 also providing a copy of this letter to the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee in connection with the ACC's review of the revised Plans. On behalf of Deltic Timber Corporation, we remain willing to review any further proposed revisions to the Plans for this particular development. Sincerely, HT, LI)q)SEY & JENNINGS LLP Jahn William Spivq III Attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation JWS/bkg cc: Mr. Larry Crain Mr. Mike Marlar Mayor Mark Stodola Bruce Moore, City Manager Tom Carpenter, City Attorney Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee 1272962-v 1 Chenal valley Architectu rat Control Committee August 26, 2015 Mr. Larry Crain Crain Family Holdings, LLC 17300 Chenal Parkway, Ste. 330 Little Rock, AR 72223 RE: Review of Chenal Village Conceptual Site Plan Dear Mr. Crain: Via Email: larrycrain Qcrainholdings.com Thank you for attending the meeting of the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee ("ACC") on Wednesday, August 19, 2015, and for presenting for the ACC's consideration the revised plans for the proposed Chenal Village development. Based upon the ACC review of the revised plans, the ACC voted to deny your application at this time. However, the ACC is open to further discussions and will be happy to provide you with more definitive comments at a later date. Sincerely, Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee 7CfienRl*CIuGBfvd.liukl kc -1 AR 722Z3 Ph. 501821-5757 MARLAR ENGINEERING CO., INC. Michael P. Marlar, P.E., PLS EEC Consulting Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors L. David Jones Jr., PLS 5318 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Darryl Laws, P.E. INCORPORATED North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 Jack Fleming, Hydrologist August 12, 2015 Ms. Donna James Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock Subject: Chenal Village PRD, Crain Family Holdings, LLC Dear Donna: We are transmitting the preliminary "Sketch" grading plan per your request and the following response to previous comments from Bill Spivey's letter: 1. Site Plan - The preliminary grading plan identifies streets with 2 percent slope or less adjacent to building units. This is more than adequate to address driveway access. Retaining walls are identified on the plan and will not be taller than 15'. The specific details will be shown on formal construction plans, but the preliminary plan should be more than adequate for identification of these improvements. The detention basin (40,000 cubic feet of volume) identified on the plan will handle significantly more than the required volume for this basin as identified on the calculations from LR Engineer Nathan Charles which is 5300 cubic feet to replace the existing detention basin. We propose to handle minor detention on the east side of the site with enlarged junction boxes and can add a small detention pond if needed as identified on the plan. Additionally, the building setback from the street has been increased to 25' as per detail on plan. Separation between buildings will be 20' and will be shown on final construction plan and will meet city code requirements. Decorative Iron fencing will be provided along front of the property and along the top of walls. 2. Composition of Units - We provide a Section Detail of the "Walk Out" unit with basements for review. We believe this type unit will work in this development and does not have excessive slopes and is consistent with other residential developments in the area. Setback Buffer along Chenal Valley Drive - We will abide by the requirements of the Little Rock Planning Department. 4. Access - From a planning perspective, this size development should and needs to have access to Chenal Valley Drive. The Planning Department has concurred with this assessment. 5. Detention - Detention is addressed in item 1 above and will be specified in detail when construction documents are submitted. 6. Lighting - Acknowledge comment and will meet all the City of Little Rock requirements regarding lighting. 7. Retaining Walls - Retaining walls are identified on the plan. 0 PHONE (501) 753-1987 FAX (501) 753-1993 WWW.MARLAR-ENG.COM 01..01I'k MARLAR ENGINEERING CO., INC. Michael P. Marlar, P.E., PLS E ConsultiiW Civil EyWineers & Land Surveyors L. David Jones Jr., PLS 5318 John F Kennedy Boulevard Darryl Laws, P.E. INCORPORATED North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116 Jack Fleming, Hydrologist 8. Grading Plan - Grading plan provided and shows streets at 2 percent slope along drives. We believe the "Walk Out" units and grading plan with retaining walls address previous comments. To provide more detail would require more formal construction plans and would normally be provided at construction document submittal stage. Front setbacks have been increased to 25'. Comments identified in 8 (a j), for the most part should be addressed at the formal plan submittal stage. Building separation on final plan will meet the city code requirements. Setbacks between buildings will be 20'. 9. Additional Comments - Acknowledge comments. Please contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Marlar Engineering Co., Inc. Michael P. Marlar, PE President CC: Larry Crain 0 "g. I I edo PHONE (501) 753-1987 FAX (501) 753-1993 WWW.MARLAR-ENG.COM /4-h!;7-- .- ' C: �j 0� L'14Lt- Q'I !'FL%m RQ.� Ae (e5 IPOIA-- - " - -,T; - i.OtNla' %ViKe- -7 (,.'L 3, HII 3 =00 �or AAtx . 21f it Mcp Ac -4.-- L� Mike Marlar From: Larry Crain [larrycrain@crainholdings.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 5:09 PM To: Mike Marlar Subject: FW: #1 Chenal Heights Drive (Lot 1, Chenal Heights Subdivision) Attachments: CCE04142015.pdf Mike, This is an email with attachment from Vince Floriani regarding the detention requirement for the giant, oversized detention facility on my property. He determined that the only water entering our detention facility from offsite is Lot 1 Chenal Heights Subdivision. As you can see, the total detention requirement is only 5,300 CF. by my calculations my swimming pool holds around 4,000 CF of water (40 x 20 x 5), so it doesn't seem we're having to handle much water from the neighbors. Let me know your thoughts. Larry From: "Floriani, Vince" <VFlariani 1ittlerock.org> To: "Larry Crain" <la crain crainholdin s.com> Cc: "Charles, Nathan" <ncharles littlerock.o > Subject: #1 Chenal Heights Drive (Lot 1, Chenal Heights Subdivision) Mr. Crain, Attached is the estimated flow from Lot 1 Chenal Heights Subdivision and the estimate detention storage volume to be provided for Lot 1. These estimated flows and detention requirements are bond on the 25 year storm event. Please use these estimates for the design of your new residential development. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by email at vfloriani littlerock.or¢<mailto:vfloriani littlerock.or > or by telephone at 501-371- 4817. Vince Floriani, P.E. City of Little Rock Public Works YU WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock. AR 72201-3699 Main 501.371.0808 Fax 501.376.9442 wlj.com John William Spivey III ATTORNEY Direct: 501.212.1310 1 I s pive y@wlj.com July 15, 2015 Mr. Cliff McKinney Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via Email RE: Lot 2, Chenal Heights Long Form PD -R (Z -6532-C), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of Chenal Heights Drive (the "Property") Dear Cliff.- Following liff: Following our meeting with you and Mr. Crain in your offices on Thursday, July 9, 2015, at which meeting I received the letter from Mr. Rich Muller, Creative Director at EVstudio of Denver, Colorado, dated July 8, 2015, I delivered copies of Mr. Muller's responses together with the "Overall Grading Plan — OGP 2.0" dated July 1, 2015, and the "Overall Site Plan — OSP 1.0") dated July 1, 2015, which, according to our discussion included additional information about the site and grading plans for the proposed Chenal Village, to Deltic's staff and engineers for review and consideration. As promised, we now offer for your consideration, Deltic's further comments to the materials you have provided in response to Deltic's initial comments contained in our letter of June 29, 2015, 1. Site Plan. There seems to be continuing confusion as to the level of detail required for review and approval of the "Site Plan" by Deltic. Mr. Muller indicates that there may be "small adjustments" between the current version of the Site Plan and the "final construction site plan" including "landscape retaining walls, slight modifications in the site lighting, detention and grading solutions, etc." However, upon further review of the documents you delivered on July 9, 2015, there remain a number of areas which have not been adequately addressed including location and type of construction of retaining walls, depth and adequacy of detention facilities and other features we have referenced in prior correspondence and which we hope to address further in the balance of this letter. These features 1266836-vl July 15, 2015 Page 2 must be shown and addressed prior to delivery of the "final construction site plan." We have emphasized this request repeatedly, but have yet to receive documentation which is responsive or adequate for Deltic's review purposes. 2. Cam osition of Units. Among the types of units described by Mr. Muller are "two (2) bedroom with walkout basement level for buildings with significant grade change" and "three (3) bedroom for buildings with significant grade change." Although we acknowledge receipt of Mr. Muller's hand drawn elevations labeled "Section A.A." and "Section B.B.", we have. not received any additional elevations depicting the appearance of either of these two building floorplan variations. Ideally, the building elevations should include additional views showing the sides and rear views of the "walkout buildings", a floorplan showing the addition of the internal stairways, and the new total floor areas of these two types of units. (We also note the mention of additional types of units in Section 8 below, for which no elevations have been provided as well,) In addition, on the OSP 1.0 drawing, we assume that the line drawn around the rear of the units is a fence. The Site Plan should show the private open space for each unit enclosed within the fence and character and construction of the fence. Furthermore, Deltic is concerned that the fenced areas behind the units, if based upon a 3:1 slope, may not be usable, practically speaking. Please explain how these "non -usable" areas will be converted to "usable" areas. 3. Setback Buffer aloe_ Chenal Valley Drive. The undisturbed buffer along Chenal Valley Drive has a minimum width of 20 feet which is unacceptable. The existing sewer line and the cleared sewer easement reduce the benefit of the proposed buffer. The cleared sewer easement renders the buffer shown useless as an undisturbed buffer. Buildings and improvements should be moved further east and retaining walls used to achieve the concept of a natural, undisturbed buffer. 4. Access. The rational included in Mr. Muller's letter appears to be entirely speculative, but if Mr. Crain has a professional analysis of the trip generation and traffic distribution based upon actual conditions to substantiate or corroborate Mr. Muller's estimated "499.2 miles per day" savings for "all residents combined!", please provide Deltic with copies of these traffic studies. Deltic believes that Mr. Muller's rationale fails to consider the distribution of traffic that would travel north and west bound on Chenal Valley Drive towards LaMarche or the traffic signal at Chenal Parkway. In fact, entering and leaving using Chenal Heights Circle may be quicker and shorter. Both Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Heights Circle are built to collector streets standards and are more than adequate for accommodating the additional traffic for the proposed Chenal Village. 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 3 5, Detention, The Site Plan shows that an existing stormwater detention facility will be filled. Mr. Muller has provided a calculation suggesting that a 5.8 foot depth for ponding should accomplish the necessary detention requirements for this site. However, the plan contemplates that only approximately one-eighth of the present detention area will remain open following the filling, and Mr. Muller's calculations failed to take into account that only a maximum depth of 3 feet of ponding is allowed for detention. Will the remaining detention facility provide adequate detention for upstream development? The proposed site drains into three separate drainage basins. There are no detention facilities shown on the Site Pian for the two basins to the east of the proposed development. What is the plan to provide for these two additional drainage basins? Deltic suggests that a more detailed drainage analysis would be appropriate now rather than later as proposed by Mr. Muller. If the Grading Plan is accurate, a detailed analysis could be completed in a matter of hours, not days. 6. Li hg tire. Deltic has no additional comments on lighting beyond those set forth in our letter of June 29, 2015. Please provide the information requested with regard to the types of lighting and heights of light standards. 7. Retainin Walls Screens and Fences. The Site Plan, not the construction documents, must locate and describe retaining walls, screen walls and fences as previously stated in our prior correspondence. The Site Plan suggests the location, but not the manner of construction or appearance of certain fences. If indeed the retaining walls contemplated in Mr. Muller's letter are "minor landscape walls," what are the locations, length and maximum height of all such walls? 8. Grading Plan. In his response, Mr. Muller acknowledges that "more extensive cut and fill" will reduce the slope between units by borrowing material from the north central portion of the site creating additional fill in the east, west and south portions of the site. Mr. Muller goes on to explain that the "extensive use of walkout building plans" will help address the steep changes of grade prevalent across the site. He references the four building types and the hand drawn Section A.A. and Section B.B. as illustrative of how such walkout units will remedy these conditions. He also acknowledges, however, that there will be adjustments during the completion of the construction documents of the details of grading, including additional walkout units (apparently in addition to those already shown in the Site Plan), garden level units (which have not previously been discussed or described), stepped units (yet to be described) and swaling which is also not shown on the Site Plan at present. Finally, Mr. Muller is misinformed when he indicates that further adjustments to the Grading Plan "will be conducted on a lot by lot basis as (Mr. Crain) obtains a site specific ACC approval and City permit for each building." Although it may be necessary to obtain such building -by -building approval from the 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 4 City before issuance of a building permit, there is no such "lot by lot" approval or review by Deltic. In fact, there is only one lot involved in the entire Site Plan! Instead, Deltic has repeatedly requested a detailed Grading Plan and, in our letter of June 29, 2015, we attempted to offer some examples of why the plan presented at that time did not meet Deltic's requirements. Without further discussion of the "walkout buildings," the "garden level units," or the "stepped units," few of which are shown by reference or location in the Site Plan and for none of which Deltic has received elevations showing what is intended by each of these designs, Deltic's engineers have once again reviewed the Grading Plan and offer further detailed comments based upon the materials provided to Deltic on July 9, 2015. These comments cover a number of issues, but all of which address one or another of what Deltic perceives to be problems with the proposed Grading Plan. These additional comments are as follows: (a) Building side yard separation should be a minimum o'20 feet. This spacing provides adequate room for grading, placement of mechanical units and meters and also increases the green space adjacent to the private roadway while helping to set off the wide, combined concrete driveways to the units. A 15 -foot separation may be acceptable in isolated and unique circumstances, but not for a third of the proposed buildings. (i) Building side yard separation of 15 feet is found in the following units: 7 through 17; 18 through 22; 70 through 77; 78 through 83; 96 through 97; and 100 through 102. (ii) Building side yard separation of 10 feet is found in the following units: 62 and 63; and 95 and 96. (iii) Thirty-six out of 104 buildings have side yard separations of less than 20 feet. 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 5 (b) The minimum acre table rear and se aration between units is 30 feet. This should be implemented as a "minimum," not a norm. Building rear yard separation of only 15 feet is found in the following units: 95 through 97; and 100 through 102. (c) The combination of 20 foot front building setbacks from the curb line, 15 foot building side yard separation, frontloaded double garages and sidewalk all combine to cover two-thirds of the already minimal front yard. Details showing typical driveway configuration should be provided. (d) All drivewa s should be at least 20 feet long to accommodate a parked vehicle in front of the garage, To avoid vehicles blocking the sidewalk, driveways should be at least 30 feet long when on the same side of the street as the walk. Driveways less than 20 feet long are found in Buildings: 67; 84 through 85; 89; and 95 through 103. (e) The vertical difference in elevation shown between the street elevation and the finished floor elevation cannot be achieved, for the majority of the buildings shown, without constructing the garage at an elevation above or below the finished floor elevation of the building. Buildings that are on the low side of the street will be susceptible to flooding if the garage elevation is below the street elevation. Building 48 has a finished floor elevation of 642.73 feet, across the street 55 feet to the northeast is Building 67 with the finished floor elevation of 653.28 feet, which is 10.55 feet higher than Building 48. The street between the buildings is shown at elevation 649 feet on the low side by Building 48, and at elevation 651 feet on the high side in front of Building 55. Two feet of cross slope in the street is unacceptable and will not be approved. Proposing to build a structure, in a project focused on seniors, that is over six feet below the street in front of the unit and only 20 feet away is impracticable and undesirable. It would be helpful if the architect would include a cross section on the revised plans and address it in his response. (f) Building 104 is not 30 feet from the boundary of the Property. The Property line elevation behind this building is at elevation 580 feet. The street 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 6 elevation in front of this unit is at 610 feet. How is this 30 -foot difference in elevation accomplished? (g) The fill slope shown behind Buildings 40 through 44 will be approximately 50 feet in height and 140 feet in horizontal distance. What measures will be used on this large slope to prevent erosion? Will the existing creek that meanders along the eastern boundary behind these buildings be filled in or protected? The length of creek along this boundary is over 500 feet. How will this slope be landscaped and stabilized? (h) The street in front of Buildings 99 and 100 slopes 4 feet over a distance of 15 feet. This is almost twice the maximum allowable longitudinal street grade. (i) Section B.B. shown on the revised plan shows a finished ground elevation sloping downward towards the lower building without any type of swale shown to divert stormwater around the lower building. It also shows the finished grade of the ground above the finished floor elevation of the lower building. How will the exterior patios be accommodated in this case? With the upper building and the 30 feet of slope all draining to a structure below grade, keeping water out of the finished spaces in the lower building will be problematic. Section A.A. shows a similar situation. Where will the exterior mechanical units be located in this case? 0) Building 57 has a finished floor elevation of 637.20 feet. It is separated from Building 37 with a finished floor elevation of 616.32 feet by a 24-footwide street and 20 feet of yard on each side of the street. The difference in building elevation is 20 feet with two feet of cross slope in the street that leaves 18 feet of vertical separation over a total distance of 40 feet which is for all practical purposes a 2:1 slope. This does not allow for any provisions to drain water around the high side of Building 37. 9. Additional Comments. Examination of the materials provided on July 9, 2015, has brought to Deltic's attention additional matters which we wish to bring to your attention: (a) Will all parking be restricted to the enclosed garages? With three-bedroom units you would expect on occasion more than two vehicles per unit. No guest parking is shown or provided for on the Site Plan. Is "on street" parking anticipated? If so, the Fire Department will restrict it to one side of the street. If vehicles are parking in the drive to the unit, the rear of the vehicle will be very close to the curb line. 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 7 (b) The three cul-de-sacs shown on the Site Plan must be 27- footwide streets to comply with fire access code, not 24 feet as noted in the Site Plan, (c) Streets should be curved to break up the long, uninterrupted straight segments. In offering these responses to Mr. Muller's letter of July 8, 2015, and the additional comments based upon Deltic's most recent review of the modified and revised proposed Site Plan and proposed Grading Plan, Deltic seeks to provide Mr. Crain with guidance concerning the elements necessary to achieve approval from Deltic. We anticipate that the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee will require similar information before approving the proposed Site Plan and proposed Grading Plan. The requested information must be included in the Site Plan and Grading Plan and may not be deferred until preparation of the final construction documents as suggested throughout Mr. Muller's letter, Should you have any questions concerning any of the matters detailed herein, feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP '��n John William Spivey Attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation JWS/jlh cc: Mayor Mark Stodola Bruce Moore, City Manager Tom Carpenter, City Attorney Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee 1266836-v1 Ya "L WRIGHT LINDSEY JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Main 501.371.0808 Fax 501.376.9442 wll.com John William Spivey III ATTORNEY Direct: 501.212.1310 1 jspivey@wlj.com July 15, 2015 Mr. Cliff McKinney Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull PLLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900. Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Via Email RE: Lot 2, Chenal Heights Long Form PD -R (Z -6532-C), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of Chenal Heights Drive (the "Property") Dear Cliff: Following our meeting with you and Mr. Crain in your offices on Thursday, July 9, 2015, at which meeting I received the letter from Mr. Rich Muller, Creative Director at EVstudio of Denver, Colorado, dated July 8, 2015, I delivered copies of Mr. Muller's responses together with the "Overall Grading Plan — OGP 2.0" dated July 1, 2015, and the "Overall Site Plan — OSP 1.0") dated July 1, 2015, which, according to our discussion included additional information about the site and grading plans for the proposed Chenal Village, to Deltic's staff and engineers for review and consideration. As promised, we now offer for your consideration, Deltic's further comments to the materials you have provided in response to Deltic's initial comments contained in our letter of June 29, 2015. 1. Site Plan. There seems to be continuing confusion as to the level of detail required for review and approval of the "Site Plan" by Deltic. Mr, Muller indicates that there may be "small adjustments" between the current version of the Site Plan and the "final construction site plan" including "landscape retaining walls, slight modifications in the site lighting, detention and grading solutions, etc." However, upon further review of the documents you delivered on July 9, 2015, there remain a number of areas which have not been adequately addressed including location and type of construction of retaining walls, depth and adequacy of detention facilities and other features we have referenced in prior correspondence and which we hope to address further in the balance of this letter. These features 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 2 must be shown and addressed prior to delivery of the "final construction site plan." We have emphasized this request repeatedly, but have yet to receive documentation which is responsive or adequate for Deltic's review purposes. 2. Com osition of Units. Among the types of units described by Mr. Muller are "two (2) bedroom with walkout basement level for buildings with significant grade change" and "three (3) bedroom for Buildings with significant grade change." Although we acknowledge receipt of Mr. Muller's hand drawn elevations labeled "Section A.A." and "Section B.B.", we have not received any additional elevations depicting the appearance of either of these two building floorplan variations. Ideally, the building elevations should include additional views showing the sides and rear views of the "walkout buildings", a floorplan showing the addition of the internal stairways, and the new total floor areas of these two types of units. (We also note the mention of additional types of units in Section 8 below, for which no elevations have been provided as well,) In addition, on the OSP 1.0 drawing, we assume that the line drawn around the rear of the units is a fence. The Site Plan should show the private open space for each unit enclosed within the fence and character and construction of the fence. Furthermore, Deltic is concerned that the fenced areas behind the units, if based upon a 3:1 slope, may not be usable, practically speaking. Please explain how these "non -usable" areas will be converted to "usable" areas. 3. Setback Buffer alone Chenal Valley Drive. The undisturbed buffer along Chenal Valley Drive has a minimum width of 20 feet which is unacceptable. The existing sewer line and the cleared sewer easement reduce the benefit of the proposed buffer. The cleared sewer easement renders the buffer shown useless as an undisturbed buffer. Buildings and improvements should be moved further east and retaining walls used to achieve the concept of a natural, undisturbed buffer. 4. Access. The rational included in Mr. Muller's letter appears to be entirely speculative, but if Mr. Crain has a professional analysis of the trip generation and traffic distribution based upon actual conditions to substantiate or corroborate Mr. Muller's estimated "499.2 miles per day" savings for "all residents combined!", please provide Deltic with copies of these traffic studies. Deltic believes that Mr. Muller's rationale fails to consider the distribution of traffic that would travel north and west bound on Chenal Valley Drive towards LaMarche or the traffic signal at Chenal Parkway. In fact, entering and leaving using Chenal Heights Circle may be quicker and shorter. Both Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Heights Circle are built to collector streets standards and are more than adequate for accommodating the additional traffic for the proposed Chenal Village, 1266836-v 1 July 15, 2015 Page 3 5. Detention, The Site Plan shows that an existing stormwater detention facility will be filled. Mr. Muller has provided a calculation suggesting that a 5.8 foot depth for ponding should accomplish the necessary detention requirements for this site. However, the plan contemplates that only approximately one-eighth of the present detention area will remain open following the filling, and Mr. Muller's calculations failed to take into account that only a maximum depth of 3 feet of ponding is allowed for detention. Will the remaining detention facility provide adequate detention for upstream development? The proposed site drains into three separate drainage basins. There are no detention facilities shown on the Site Plan for the two basins to the east of the proposed development. What is the plan to provide for these two additional drainage basins? Deltic suggests that a more detailed drainage analysis would be appropriate now rather than later as proposed by Mr. Muller. If the Grading Plan is accurate, a detailed analysis could be completed in a matter of hours, not days. 6. Lighting. Deltic has no additional comments on lighting beyond those set forth in our letter of June 29, 2015. Please provide the information requested with regard to the types of lighting and heights of light standards. 7. Retaining Walls Screens and Fences. The Site Plan, not the construction documents, must locate and describe retaining walls, screen walls and fences as previously stated in our prior correspondence. The Site Plan suggests the location, but not the manner of construction or appearance of certain fences. If indeed the retaining walls contemplated in Mr. Muller's letter are "minor landscape walls," what are the locations, length and maximum height of all such walls? 8. Grading Plan. In his response, Mr. Muller acknowledges that "more extensive cut and fill" will reduce the slope between units by borrowing material from the north central portion of the site creating additional fill in the east, west and south portions of the site. Mr. Muller goes on to explain that the "extensive use of walkout building plans" will help address the steep changes of grade prevalent across the site. He references the four building types and the hand drawn Section A.A. and Section B.B. as illustrative of how such walkout units will remedy these conditions. He also acknowledges, however, that there will be adjustments during the completion of the construction documents of the details of grading, including additional walkout units (apparently in addition to those already shown in the Site Plan), garden level units (which have not previously been discussed or described), stepped units (yet to be described) and swaling which is also not shown on the Site Plan at present. Finally, Mr. Muller is misinformed when he indicates that further adjustments to the Grading Plan "will be conducted on a lot, by lot basis as (Mr. Crain) obtains a site specific ACC approval and City permit for each building." Although it may be necessary to obtain such building -by -building approval from the 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 4 City before issuance of a building permit, there is no such "lot by lot' approval or review by Deltic. In fact, there is only one lot involved in the entire Site Plan! Instead, Deltic has repeatedly requested a detailed Grading Plan and, in our letter of June 29, 2015, we attempted to offer some examples of why the plan presented at that time did not meet Deltic's requirements. Without further discussion of the "walkout buildings," the "garden level units," or the "stepped units," few of which are shown by reference or location in the Site Plan and for none of which Deltic has received elevations showing what is intended by each of these designs, Deltic's engineers have once again reviewed the Grading Plan and offer further detailed comments based upon the materials provided to Deltic on July 9, 2015. These comments cover a number of issues, but all of which address one or another of what Deltic perceives to be problems with the proposed Grading Plan. These additional comments are as follows: (a) Building side Yard separation should be a minimum of 20 feet. This spacing provides adequate room for grading, placement of mechanical units and meters and also increases the green space adjacent to the private roadway while helping to set off the wide, combined concrete driveways to the units. A 15 -foot separation may be acceptable in isolated and unique circumstances, but not for a third of the proposed buildings. (i) Building side yard separation of 15 feet is found in the following units: 7 through 17; 18 through 22; 70 through 77; 78 through 83; 96 through 97; and 100 through 102. (ii) Building side yard separation of 10 feet is found in the following units: 62 and 63; and 95 and 96. (iii) Thirty-six out of 104 buildings have side yard separations of less than 20 feet. 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 5 (b) The minimum acre table rear and separation between units is 30 feet. This should be implemented as a "minimum," not a norm. Building rear yard separation of only 15 feet is found in the following units: 95 through 97; and 100 through 102, (c) The combination of 20 foot front building setbacks from the curb line, 15 foot building side yard separation, frontloaded double garages and sidewalk all combine to cover two-thirds of the already minimal front yard. Details showing typical driveway configuration should be provided. (d) All drivewa s should beat least 20 feet Ion to accommodate a asked vehicle in front of the arae. To avoid vehicles blocking the sidewalk, driveways should be at least 30 feet long when on the same side of the street as the walk. Driveways less than 20 feet long are found in Buildings: 67; 84 through 85; 89; and 95 through 103. (e) The vertical difference in elevation shown between the street elevation and the finished floor elevation cannot be achieved, for the majority of the buildings shown, without constructing the garage at an elevation above or below the finished floor elevation of the building. Buildings that are on the low side of the street will be susceptible to flooding if the garage elevation is below the street elevation. Building 48 has a finished floor elevation of 642.73 feet, across the street 55 feet to the northeast is Building 67 with the finished floor elevation of 653.28 feet, which is 10.55 feet higher than Building 48. The street between the buildings is shown at elevation 649 feet on the low side by Building 48, and at elevation 651 feet on the high side in front of Building 55. Two feet of cross slope in the street is unacceptable and will not be approved. Proposing to build a structure, in a project focused on seniors, that is over six feet below the street in front of the unit and only 20 feet away is impracticable and undesirable, It would be helpful if the architect would include a cross section on the revised plans and address it in his response. (f) Building 104 is not 30 feet from the boundary of. the Property. The Property line elevation behind this building is at elevation 580 feet. The street 1266836-v1 July 15, 2015 Page 6 elevation in front of this unit is at 610 feet. How is this 30 -foot difference in elevation accomplished? (g) The fill slope shown behind Buildings 40 through 44 will be approximately 50 feet in height and 140 feet in horizontal distance. What measures will be used on this large slope to prevent erosion? Will the existing creek that meanders along the eastern boundary behind these buildings be filled in or protected? The length of creek along this boundary is over 500 feet. How will this slope be landscaped and stabilized? (h) The street in front of Buildings 99 and 100 slopes 4 feet over a distance of 15 feet. This is almost twice the maximum allowable longitudinal street grade. (i) Section B.B. shown on the revised plan shows a finished ground elevation sloping downward towards the lower building without any type of swale shown to divert stormwater around the lower building. It also shows the finished grade of the ground above the finished floor elevation of the lower building. How will the exterior patios be accommodated in this case? With the upper building and the 30 feet of slope all draining to a structure below grade, keeping water out of the finished spaces in the lower building will be problematic. Section A.A, shows a similar situation. Where will the exterior mechanical units be located in this case? 0) Building 57 has a finished floor elevation of 637.20 feet. It is separated from Building 37 with a finished floor elevation of 616.32 feet by a 24-footwide street and 20 feet of yard on each side of the street. The difference in building elevation is 20 feet with two feet of cross slope in the street that leaves 18 feet of vertical separation over a total distance of 40 feet which is for all practical purposes a 2:1 slope. This does not allow for any provisions to drain water around the high side of Building 37. 9. Additional Comments. Examination of the materials provided on July 9, 2015, has brought to Deltic's attention additional matters which we wish to bring to your attention: (a) Will all parking be restricted to the enclosed garages? With three-bedroom units you would expect on occasion more than two vehicles per unit. No guest parking is shown or provided for on the Site Plan. Is "on street" parking anticipated? If so, the Fire Department will restrict it to one side of the street. If vehicles are parking in the drive to the unit, the rear of the vehicle will be very close to the curb line. 1266836-y1 July 15, 2015 Page 7 (b) The three cul-de-sacs shown on the Site Plan must be 27- footwide streets to comply with fire access code, not 24 feet as noted in the Site Plan. (c) Streets should be curved to break up the long, uninterrupted straight segments. In offering these responses to Mr. Muller's letter of July 8, 2015, and the additional comments based upon Deltic's most recent review of the modified and revised proposed Site Plan and proposed Grading Plan, Deltic seeks to provide Mr. Crain with guidance concerning the elements necessary to achieve approval from Deltic. We anticipate that the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee will require similar information before approving the proposed Site Plan and proposed Grading Plan. The requested information must be included in the Site Plan and Grading Plan and may not be deferred until preparation of the final construction documents as suggested throughout Mr. Muller's letter. Should you have any questions concerning any of the matters detailed herein, feel free to contact the undersigned at your convenience. Sincerely, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP John William Spivey l Attorneys for Deltic Timber Corporation JWS/jlh cc: Mayor Mark Stodola Bruce Moore, City Manager Tom Carpenter, City Attorney Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood Architectural Control Committee 1266836-v1 Crain Family Holdin s LLC 17300 Chenal Parkway, Suite 330, Little Rock, AR 72223 (501) 712-1369 June 9, 2015 Attn: Donna James City of Little Rock Planning 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Planned Residential Development Chenal Village Dear Ms. James: Included herewith are 4 copies of the above mentioned residential development site plan. The development has already been approved by the planning commission, however, the site plan has been modified since it received the approval. We would like to request the new site plan be approved by the planning commission at the July 16' meeting before being heard by the city board that was originally scheduled for June 161'. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely, Brandon DeGroat CFO Crain Family Holdings, LLC Chenal Village A Luxury Home Leasing Community for Active Adults.* *Chenal Village is primarily made up of residents age 55 and older, and conforms to all 1995 HOPA Fair Housing Act requirements. Documents Included in Submission: Pages 1-2: Table of Contents & Submission Requirements Pages 3-4: Chenal Valley ACC Commercial Application Page 5: CP5.0 - Conceptual Landscape Site Plan Page 6: SDI - Conceptual Front Elevation in Color Page 7: Site Survey Page 8: OSP1.0- Overall Site Plan Page 9: SPLO - Site Plan Page 10: SP1.1 - Site Plan Page 11: OGP2.0 - Overall Grading Plan Page 12: GP2.0 - Grading Plan Page 13: GP2.1 - Grading Plan Page 14: SDO1 -Floor Plan Page 15: SD05 - Front & Left Elevation Page 16: SD06 - Rear & Right Elevation Page 17: LP1.0 - Landscape Plan 3.3 Submission Reg airements - All plans submitted to the Architectural Control Committee for review must include the following information. 3.3.a. A site plan at a scale of 1- equals 50= or larger showing: 1. Topography-GP2.0, GP2.1 2. streets - SP 1.0, SP 1.1 3. wooded areas - CP5.0 4. proposed building location- SP 1.0, SP1.1 5. building footprint - SP 1.0, SPI .1 6. driveways - SP 1.0, SP 1.1 7. walls and screens - SP 1.0, SP1.1 8. terraces and decks 9. parking areas - SP 1.0, SP 1.1 10. walks - SP 1.0, SP1.1 11. any other accessory uses 12. property lines - SP 1.0, SP1.1 13. utility easements - SP 1.0, SP1.1 14. grading plan - GP2.0, GP2.1 15. site lighting- SP 1.0, SP1.1 16. existing trees 12" in diameter (measured 4' above grade) 3.3.b. A floor plan showing major dimensions and openings at a scale of 1/8=— equals /8=equals 1=-0- or larger. — SDO1 3.3.c. Elevation drawings of the proposed building indicating mass, shape and major exterior materials and colors. Elevations are required for all sides. All utilitarian (such as electrical elements, waste storage areas, loading docks and the Iike) areas must be screened and indicated on plans. — SDO5, SD06, SD10 3.3.d. Elevation and detail drawings of screen walls, railings and site structures. — SD05, SD06, SDI 0 3.3.e. Landscape plans showing all planting areas at a scale of 1= equals 20= or larger showing: — LPLO 1. plant materials (size, quantity and type) — LPLO 2. bed areas — LPLO 3. screening — LPLO 4. buffer strips — LPLO 5. irrigation limits — Entire site will be irrigated except for undisturbed areas on Chenal Valley Drive and 125 feet east of buildings 40-45 6. detention ponds — CP5.0 7. walkways — CP5.0 Appendix A CHENAL VALLEY ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMIT TEE CON4MERCIAi APPLICATION To: Chenal Valley Architectural hate Submitted: 6/11/15 Control Committee 7 Chenal Club Blvd. Lot # Bjmk # 38.23 acres per attached survey Little Rock, AR 72223 Street Address16402 Chenal Valley Dr. Crain Family Holdings, LLC Lot O-%zter: - Adder: 17300 Chenal Parkway, Suite 330 City: Little Rock Phone: (M Proposed Buildcr/Contra tor. TBD Address: Cirv. Phone: (H) STATE AR 72223 ZIP (4) 501-712-1369 ST ZIP. X New Construction Remodeling/Addition This submission is for final approval of: X Site Plans X Floor Plans X Elcvatioas Style I3csCriptian: Modern Traditional, Gable Roof - Expected Start DatrlCompledon Date: Start: September 2015 Setbacks in Feel (facing from street): Varies, Minimum 50' on Chenal Valley Dr, see prelim site plan Front: 20 R=,, 50 Let Right: 15 1. Sq_ Ft.: Per 1 lmr: 1,698 SF +/- Heated & Cooled + 451 SF Garage + 157 SF Covered Porches Total Square F'oct 2,149 SF 2. Unfinished LocaOon(s): N/A 3 Decks: 157 SF 4. Extra Features: Hardwood floors and natural tile, premium kitchen appliances and bath fixtures, energy efficient construction materials (windows, lighting, etc), CSW WXIUS,ACCCOM 3 Clubhouse with gourmet kitchen and banquet space, community pool, water features, fishing, walking trails, dog park, picnic areas, 24hr video surveillance 5. Exterior Materials Specifications: Color Brick, Stone, Precast Varies t Architectural Asphalt Shingles Gray Rwf- Clad Simulated Divided Light Beige WindowslGlass Doors: 8' Solid Core with Divided Light _ Varies -- We've made some hand written changes that we'll have architect change on plans. Other: _ 6. I andscape Speciliications: (Attach landscape Plans) .Materials Color Privacy Wood & Decorative Iron Natural, Black Fences: _-- _ — Walls: Decorative Segmented Block Gray Architectural Scored Concrete Gray Driveways: Other: See attached Landscape Plan. _ _... Plants/Trees. I (we) certify that 1(we) have reviewed the Chanel Valley Covenants and the Development Standards and I (we) &V not to make any changes in exterior plans and colors submitted or to make any exterior additions without written permission from the ArcMuxtural Control Committee. Owner0evcloper: -- Date: -- Contractor. Date: C.iVYP50VFA.E41A[7GC�A( 4 o� sesueNiyloalelS'hlselnd;o,punoo'NooaelA!lloAVC) p l ij anup R811EA leu®4O a eiil - ay Fm a adeospuel weld apS ]en}daouo0 W mil LU 0 Q ftjr Q z w x V a j D O = m c N LO U 9a L `o cm I L 3 = < < (J J U vi 33= go x 6 44i4 y1 �` � ro r.. ♦. N '4 i im IM .S r V � Q I -f; \ _� 4* _yam +@&� ' aa:@� § \ , R, �E! & �emrm�o § §H ! )) �» 5 9 umd m2 mmda uog # (§\ | 9{IL g R \ # -. V $ �` 7d a6e| eua [][ | i 2§ �V � | \ , ;} o W2\\\Rg! X91" |� - !| \ - �-� r- �` W \)~ Ig Q \� \ \0 \ . ---_-- W \ \ ~ " • � ' . : ` -E \ � ! \ � \ (' n 8 � ,\� > 1 f ~ !' 0E •,` AID _e�m_y +r#�' @ A,4 OAUemR@#o § 5r§v\; g \ @ 55 umd m2 Rmda uoQ j a / «k \ a6e� A|eu9gO ° \ / /! in © 2 §ia 1 1126- gn§ || °°•!, � ,\� > 1 f ~ !' 8 sesueNiV jo Bjej$'!mse!nd;o lqunoo'jooa alunto Ain u EF a a= c r g anua A9112A leus4O S �, m g 9 em z Ueld a1!S len}daouo� W {, ) d Y afieIIIA leu9gO LL ! E �: s11 A -C3 gill N gaB�3 0o � s s� 1111,11H " _ a v � kw v N C t t � _ 4;0 _ V +� W g - - C U v O 3 o Q o U I Zv Y s II R I R I 0 0 0 W v� g 1 1 R wo V ` 0 a c u ' C O N t ♦� ,♦ i C � � F � � OZ. ' t J { } 10 I �► I i - {. p^� _•mss. �': - r::`�,�� ;�`'.c •rte . �..r. .� „' �'�.•• ��•`:�� rG .fir.. f til wr .. �-� -�` 1. } •-• par o r N sesuexay `xao� a?;1rI dQy? + g s m 0 Wal gat ' ®- C 1f— 1 1 � 1 r 1 b b 4 - 4 — 1 f L-4 C 1f— OS;f U J O 'yilu O W o E sesue� cy `}��o� alil 'I ICS. ` . 0 o z C) 0� o H Q uN �O�ti I'IIA'I�N�H� ° �a �'L� _, oQ W okc2 mai d= �u ;= o ST �I 1=I I I i I � �o 4 ° I � w LL. J 0 °o G I ° w .I m N I I I 1 I • � I I } I � r I I i 1 _ . I I LO � 4 - 19 i - I M®® k I 1 I � I 1 l 1� sesue�iay `��og a[33!'I o C/ j =9,' o' 0a W O 39VTllA'IVN3HO ° Ji �I z 0 w w Q w 0 0 0 w co0 W CO 0 0 0 w co 7 1r 8 J sesu"jVjo aae3S '!Nse!nd;o fpnoo 'Nooy alvi ;o Al!o _ p;tF �� g om m m E anu4 AalleA leua4O $ 'E " a �� m veld @I!S len}da�uo� W I F o m a d we e r afiell!n leuau� F C) J 12 -n¢9 aha v �8 RS @ cc N € Y H = o C 'a @ N cn L 93 N 01 d Z, i N O) P N 0co mU 7t m❑ t—� Z a (n N m C C O .L .J N O C- CU a� a) O- c m 3 E O _:E L C@ Qly a� O N c Ww a m o w o a @ c LL N N ti Y .f6 LL T CO o .ftft�I c U� J ' O U W ❑ H t I I � 1 0 � � va o-- Uh ----� �— _ O �U C O v�j O C> N 7 o E m > m m m N a Q m m o E.M(D o L� �cn� N m C N O c C 7 L N N 0 N N t W L N m y O 1 • 7 m O Z m T t=LL a tU C m E c LV w 7 0 --¢ a .°n o N O N O -C C.� J — u0 (D;r v Y LL 1 James, Donna From: Bill Spivey <jspivey@wlj.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 3, 2015 2:49 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: Scanned Image From Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP Attachments: scanuser20@wlj.com_20150202_172531.pdf Donna Here is the email I sent Cliff McKinney late yesterday afternoon along with my letter on behalf of Deltic. I again apologize for not having included you on this transmittal. Sincerely, ME -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Spivey Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 4:31 PM To: Cliff McKinney (cmckinney@ggtlaw.com) Cc: Mark Stodola; BMoore@littlerock.org; TCarpenter@littlerock.org Subject: FW: Scanned Image From Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP Cliff: I sincerely apologize for not being able to get my letter to you sooner but the process of reviewing and analyzing the materials submitted by Mr. Crain took longer than I expected. Cordially, -----Original Message ----- From: scanuser20@wlj.com [mailto:scanuser20@wlj.comj On Behalf Of scanuser20@ Sent: Monday, February 02, 2015 4:26 PM To: Bill Spivey - Subject: Scanned Image From Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP Reply to: scanuser20@wlj.com <scanuser20@wlj.com> Device Name: Not Set Device Model: MX -M904 Location: Not Set File Format: PDF MMR(G4) Resolution: 300dpi x 300dpi Attached file is scanned image in PDF format. Use Acrobat(R)Reader(R) or Adobe(R)Reader(R) of Adobe Systems Incorporated to view the document. Adobe(R)Reader(R) can be downloaded from the following URL: Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, and Reader are registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and other countries. EDWARD L. WRIGIIT (1003.1077) ROBERT' S. LINDSEY O013•I9R1) ALSTON dFNNINGS (1017.2004) CORDON S. RATI-IE R, Jlt. H ,JON R. TISDAI,E ,JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY III LI118'1 MULD ROW N. M. NORT N CHARLES T . COLEMAN EDWIN L. LOWTHP11, ,JR. GREGORY T ,JONES WALTER MCSPADDrN JOHN D. DAVIS ,JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER T'BOY A. PRICE KATHRYN A. PRYOR ,1. MARK DAVIS ,IFRRY ,1. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCAS'T'ER KYLE R. WILSON ,I. CHARLES DOUGHERTY ,JUSTIN T'. ALLEN MICHELLE M. KAFMMFRLING SCOTT ANDREW TREY PATRICK D. WILSON DAVID P. GLOVER REGINA A. YOUNG PAUL D. MORRIS GARY D. MARTS, dR. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 . FAX (501) 378-9442 NORTHWEST ARKANSAS 3333 PINNACLE TTTLLS PARKWAY, SUITE 810 ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72768.8060 (479) 086.0888 • FAX (479) 986-8032 www,wlj.COm Reply to Little Rock Office February 2, 2015 Mr. Cliff McKinney Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull P.LLC 111 Center Street, Suite 1900 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ERIC HrRGFR P. D111,ANNA PADILLA OAI,I;Y R. VO JOIINATIIAN D. NORTON JANI{ A. KIM ADKIrNNK 1,. RAKER DAVID 1,. .IONPS W. CARSON 'TUCKER I(RISTEN S. MOYRRS I, ItIN S. UIIOGDON RICIIARD BLAKELY GLASGOW DI ANA RORGOGNONI SNYDER PATRICK M. YOUNG BIANCA M. RUCKER ANTWAN 1). PHILLIPS BASTrR D. DRENNON MICIIAP,I, A. TIIOMPSON sl-)TII It. ,IEWELI, HAYDEN W, SIIURCAR dAIMIIS C. MOSS Nr EMAII A. KSMAKII,POUR It, AARON BROOKS RERrCCA If. STAlll, DAVID C. ,JUNG SCOTT A. RURTON nF COIJNNF.I. ,JAMES M. MOODY ,IOIIN 0. LILE ROGI1,R A. GLASGOW FRED M. PERKINS III ,JASON D. IIFNDREN ,IrR1+ItEY L. SINGLETON ERIKA ROSS GEE 13RUCIL R. LINDSEY ,JAMES R, VAN DOVER Via Email and US Re ular Mail RE: Lot 2, Chenal Heights Long Form PD -R (Z -6532-C), located East of Chenal Parkway and South of Chenal Heights Drive (the "Property") Dear Cliff: On behalf of our client Deltic Timber Corporation, we thank you for the invitation to meet with you and your client, Mr, Crain, on Thursday, January 15, 2015. I was encouraged by both Mr. Crain's and your statements of his willingness to comply with the Chenal Valley Commercial Property Architectural Control Guidelines (the "Guidelines") promulgated pursuant to the Bill of Assurance of the Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood ("CVCN"), subject to receiving a detailed statement of deficiencies in the materials he originally submitted in August of 2014, as well as identification of any elements of your client's proposed development which may prove to be inconsistent with Deltic's interpretation of the Guidelines and related documents, Deltic fully appreciates Mr. Crain's desire to avoid unnecessary expenses related to aspects or components of his development to which Deltic may have objections and which may not be acceptable to the Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee ("ACC"), As I mentioned during our meeting, the lack of detailed information about Mr. Crain's plans will necessarily limit the scope of this response and, again as I stated in our meeting, all we may be able to do is raise 1244896-v1 February 2, 2015 Page 2 more questions suggested by the materials received so far. With this thought in mind, we offer the following outline for your consideration; Purpose of the Guidelines: The CVCN consists of approximately 600 acres, a significant portion of which remains undeveloped at the present time. The Guidelines and the review process were designed in contemplation that full development of the CVCN would occur over a number of years. Emphasis was placed upon the development of a procedure for insuring consistency, harmony among existing developments and consideration of the potential impact of each new development upon already established developments, as well as undeveloped areas, rather than "as a collection of individual, separately arranged parcels." Although Deltic reserved to itself the power to enforce the review and approval process, the Company also authorized the ACC to administer the Guidelines. The ACC has functioned well for over 20 years and has always strived to work with the Planning and Public Works Departments of the City of Little Rock. Your client has repeatedly stated his precognition of and desire to comply with the Guidelines, yet the application he riled in August of 2014 is seriously deficient in a number of areas. In the balance of this letter, we will attempt to explain these deficiencies and why this missing information is relevant to your client's zoning application now pending before the Little Rock Board of Directors. In addition, we will attempt to identify, if we can, elements of Mr. Crain's proposed PD -R which are inconsistent with Deltic's views. 1. Direct Access to Chenal Valle Drive: As indicated in our September 15, 2014, letter to Mr. Crain, and as I have stated to the City Planning Staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors, the original PD -R approved in connection with the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System's (the "ATRS") original plan to develop the Property, contemplated a comprehensive, stepped care elderly facility and was approved with access to the entire property from Chenal Valley Drive via Chenal Heights Drive. The three existing developments within the boundaries of the original ATRS PD -R, are all accessed via Chenal Heights Drive, The Property is accessed by Chenal Heights Circle which intersects Chenal Heights Drive thereby providing access to Chenal Valley Drive. Deltic's position has consistently been that access to the Property should continue to be from Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Heights Circle rather than directly from Chenal Valley Drive as contemplated in Mr. Crain's current site plan. In the past, Mr. Crain has stressed the importance of the City's requirement that 1244896-v 1 February 2, 2015 Page 3 there be at least two entry points to the Property to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. Deltic has previously indicated its willingness to work with Mr. Crain to develop an emergency entrance from either Chenal Valley Drive or Rahling Road while the primary access to the Property would be from Chenal Heights Circle. More recently, Mr. Crain and you have suggested that the "infrastructure" of Chenal Heights Drive and Chenal Heights Circle does not provide adequate access to the Property, however, this proposition is not supported by any objective or empirical data, nor, to our knowledge, has the City ever suggested that this is the case. In short, Deltic is not aware of any reason why the primary entrance to the proposed development cannot be constructed on Chenal Heights Circle and why, assuming a secondary emergency entrance could be agreed upon, such primary access would be either inappropriate or inadequate. Consideration of the design of streets and driveways is well within the scope of the Guidelines and the overall impact upon the CVCN of access to public streets is an appropriate item for consideration. Absent a direction by the City that the primary access to the Property must be from Chenal Valley Drive, or a demonstration that for other reasons access to the Property via Chenal Heights Circle is either unsafe or inadequate, Deltic will continue to object to the primary entrance to the Property being constructed directly from Chenal Valley Drive. 2. Submission Re uiiements: Section 3.3 of the Guidelines provides that "all plans submitted to the Architectural Control Committee for review must include" the information set forth in subsections 3.3.a through 3.3.e. The materials Mr. Crain has submitted to the ACC so far, some portion of which has also been delivered to me as Deltic's attorney, have addressed in some respect these submission elements. While reserving the right to request additional information with respect to all of the submission requirements, we can presently advise Mr. Crain that his application is deficient, in Deltic's opinion, in many respects. The following is a summary of certain of these deficiencies: (a) Site Plan: Section 3.3.a requires a site plan at a scale of 1 equals 50 = or larger showing 16 specifically listed elements. Neither Deltic nor the ACC has ever received a site plan in the form and containing the elements required under this Section of the Guidelines. Until such time as a site plan of this scale and containing these elements is received, the application is incomplete. (Deltic acknowledges that Mr. Crain has submitted one or more site plans on S Y2 by 11 inch paper. Not only is the site plan submitted by Mr. Crain not to the scale required by the Guidelines, but a number of the listed elements are not shown 1244696-v1 February 2, 2015 Page 4 on the site plan including topography, wooded areas, driveways, walls and screens, terraces and decks, utility easements, a grading plan, site lighting, and existing trees twelve inches (12") in diameter, This may not be an exclusive list of the deficiencies in the site plan, but without having the required level of detail, neither Deltic nor the ACC can adequately evaluate and comment upon the proposed development. The absence of this level of detail raises more questions than answers and, as we have suggested in previous correspondence and conversations, puts Deltic and the ACC in the position of speculating about what Mr, Crain's ultimate intentions may, in fact, be with regard to his development. By providing the required level of detail, it is hoped that an accurate evaluation of the plans, the feasibility of construction, and identification of potential problems in constructing the development as suggested by the preliminary site plan would be achievable.) (b) F loo�an,: Section 3.3.b of the Guidelines requires submission of a floorplan for each structure showing major dimensions and openings at a scale of "1/8 - 1" 0 = or larger." Although Deltic obtained from the City copies of additional floorplans submitted by Mr. Crain, nothing resembling a detailed floorplan as contemplated by the Guidelines has ever been submitted to either Deltic or the ACC, to the best of our knowledge. Such floorplans should clearly indicate the internal layout of each building, including the residential, non-residential and accessory structures. Similarly, all driveways must be shown in connection with each structure. (c) Elevation Drawings: Section 3.3.c of the Guidelines provides that in addition to the elevations of each proposed building (and we acknowledge that Mr. Crain has provided some elevations in connection with his submission), the Guidelines require that elevations for all four or more sides of each structure, together with location of all electrical elements, and any other accessory uses and screening elements must be shown as well in the elevations. (d) Screen Walls, Railin s and Site Structures: Section 3.3.d contemplates that Mr. Crain's plans will include detailed drawings of any screen walls, railings, fences, retaining walls and any other structures which are elements of the plans, In an email dated October 27, 2014, Mr, Crain suggested that "there would likely need to be constructed" some retaining walls. Such features should be designed and the method and manner of construction, composition of materials and probable locations should be shown in the detailed site plans. So far, this information and documentation has not been provided. 1244896-vl