Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutS-1827 Application 2City of Little Rock Planning and Development Filing Fees CI Date t�-f , 20 Annexation $ Board of Adjustment $ Cond Use Permit/T UP $ Final Plat $ Planned Unit Dev `X) � $ Preliminaiy Plat V: Special Use Permit Sip 24 2Q�$1� ,' Rezoning C�� �`_� 1 v t►' , tl:�a6Orr Site Plans • Sti eet Name Change $ Street Name Signs Number at ea $ Public Hearing Signs Number at ea $ Total $ 'l1 File No Loc Apl By MEMORANDUM TO: DONNA JAMES, SUBDIVISION ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TRACY SPILLMAN, PLANS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATOR SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE BUFFER AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OCTOBER 10, 2018, SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE MEETING CC: DANA CARNEY, ZONING & SUBDIVISION MANAGER DATE: OCTOBER 08, 2018 1. 10000 Rodney Parham Rd S-724-B 1. No Comment 2. Benham Lane located off Marchwood (S-1424-S) 1. No Comment 3. 80000 Block of West Markham Street (S-I 827) 1. No Comment 4. NE Comer of Lanehart Rd and McPhearson Rd S-1828 2. No Comment 5. 1300 N Shackleford (Z-3451-C) 1. Any new site development must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide. Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet within the perimeter planting strip. Provide three (3) shrubs or vines for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. 3. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking area(s). The minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be one hundred fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer parking spaces. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half (7 1 /2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. 4. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas shall be required for developments of one (1) acre or larger. 5. The development of two (2) acres or more requires the landscape plan to be stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 6. If any of the landscape code requirements cannot be met a variance from the City Beautiful Commission may be required before a building permit is issued. 7. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. 6. 11500 Block of Bass Pro Parkway Z-3660-K Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. The southwest perimeter planting strip is deficient. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking area(s). For developments with more than one hundred fifty (150) parking spaces the minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be three hundred (300) square feet. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half (7 1 /2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. 4. Building landscape areas shall be provided between the vehicular use area used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building. These shall be provided at the rate equivalent to planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area. One (1) tree and four (4) shrubs shall be planted in the building landscape areas for each forty (40) linear feet of vehicular use area abutting the building. 5. An irrigation system shall be required for developments of one (1) acre or larger. 6. The development of two (2) acres or more requires the landscape plan to be stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect. 7. If any of the landscape code requirements cannot be met a variance from the City Beautiful Commission may be required before a building permit is issued. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. 7. 15112 Chenal Parkway Z-4470-L 1. Any new site development must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements and the Chenal Overlay District. 2. Street buffers will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot. The minimum dimension shall be one-half (%2) the full width requirement but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The maximum dimension required shall be fifty (50) feet. 3. Screening requirements will need to be met for the vehicular use areas adjacent to street right-of-ways. Provide screening shrubs with an average linear spacing of not less at three (3) feet within the required landscape area. Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet. 4. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property or the right-of-way of any street. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. Due to the retaining wall in the west perimeter planting strip a consistent nine (9) foot width is not met. 5. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking area(s). The minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be one hundred fifty (150) square feet for developments with one hundred fifty (150) or fewer parking spaces. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half (7 1/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for -every twelve (12) parking spaces. 6. Landscape areas shall be provided between the vehicular use area used for public parking and the general vicinity of the building, excluding truck loading or service areas not open to public parking. These shall be provided at the rate equivalent to planter strip three (3) feet wide along the vehicular use area. One (1) tree and four (4) shrubs shall be planted in the building landscape areas for each forty (40) linear feet of vehicular use area abutting the building. Landscape areas will need to be added for the commercial building. 7. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas shall be required for developments of one (1) acre or larger. 8. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. 8. 10915 Sta ecoach Road Z-5649-G 1. Site plan must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A land use buffer six (6) percent of the average width / depth of the lot will be required when an adjacent property has a dissimilar use of a more restrictive nature. The properties to the west and south and a portion of the east are zoned R-2. The approximate average width of the lot is 330 feet. A minimum twenty (20) foot buffer will be required adjacent to west property line. The south property line and portions of the east and west property lines are in the floodway and include an overhead utility easement. Protect existing vegetation in these areas, no new work required. 3. A as a component of all land use buffer requirements, opaque screening, whether a fence or other device, six (6) feet in height shall be required upon the property line side of the buffer. In addition to the required screening, buffers are to be at the rate of one (1) tree and three (3) shrubs for every thirty (30) linear feet. 4. Screening requirements will need to be met for the vehicular use areas adjacent to street right-of-ways. Provide screening shrubs with an average linear spacing of not less at three (3) feet within the required landscape area. Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet. 5. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property, or the right-of-way of any street. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. 6. Eight percent (8%) of the vehicular use area must be designated for green space; this green space needs to be evenly distributed throughout the parking area(s). For developments with more than one hundred fifty (150) parking spaces the minimum size of an interior landscape area shall be three hundred (300) square feet. Interior islands must be a minimum of seven and one half (7 1/2) feet in width. Trees shall be included in the interior landscape areas at the rate of one (1) tree for every twelve (12) parking spaces. 7. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas shall be required for developments of one (1) acre or larger. 8. The development of two (2) acres or more requires the landscape plan to be stamped with the seal of a Registered Landscape Architect, 9. If any of the landscape code requirements cannot be met a variance from the City Beautiful Commission may be required before a building permit is issued. 10. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. 9. SE Corner of Chenal and Rahling Circle Z-6323-Y 1. Any new site development must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements and the Chenal Overlay District. 2. Street buffers will be required at six (6) percent of the average depth of the lot. The minimum dimension shall be one-half ('/2) the full width requirement but in no case less than nine (9) feet. The average depth of the lot is approximately 388.5 linear feet. A minimum twenty-three (23) foot street buffer is required between the property line and the Rahling Circle right-of-way. 3. Screening requirements will need to be met for the vehicular use areas adjacent to street right-of-ways. Provide screening shrubs with an average linear spacing of not less at three (3) feet within the required landscape area. Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet. 4. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property, or the right-of-way of any street. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. 5. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. 10. 1700 Block of Wilson Rd (Z-8814-A) 1. No Comment 11. 1417 Kavanaugh Boulevard Z-9208-A 1. No Comment 12.7915 HWY 300 (Z-9363) 1. Any new site development must comply with the City's minimal landscape and buffer ordinance requirements. 2. A land use buffer six (6) percent of the average width / depth of the lot will be required when an adjacent property has a dissimilar use of a more restrictive nature. The properties to the north, south and west are zoned R-2. The approximate average width of the lot is 175 feet. A minimum ten (10) foot six (6) inch buffer will be required adjacent to the north and south property lines. The average depth of the lot is approximately 315 linear feet. A minimum nineteen (19) foot buffer will be required adjacent to the west property line. 3. Screening requirements will need to be met for the vehicular use areas adjacent to street right-of-ways. Provide screening shrubs with an average linear spacing of not less at three (3) feet within the required landscape area. Provide trees with an average linear spacing of not less than thirty (30) feet. 4. A perimeter planting strip is required along any side of a vehicular use area that abuts adjoining property, or the right-of-way of any street. This strip shall be at least nine (9) feet wide. One (1) tree and three (3) shrubs or vines shall be planted for every thirty (30) linear feet of perimeter planting strip. 5. An automatic irrigation system to water landscaped areas shall be required for developments of one (1) acre or larger. 6. If any of the landscape code requirements cannot be met a variance from the City Beautiful Commission may be required before a building permit is issued. 7. The City Beautiful Commission recommends preserving as many existing trees as feasible on this site. Credit toward fulfilling Landscape Ordinance requirements can be given when preserving trees of six (6) inch caliper or larger. Public Works Review Comments Board of Adjustment Planning Agenda Date: 11/1/2018 Z File Number Z-3660-K Gateway Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review 11500 Blk of Bass Pro Parkway 1 Provide locations of streets and driveway intersections on the east side of Bass Pro Parkway in the vicinity of the proposed driveway location. 2 Swimming pool discharge cannot be directly connected to the stormwater drainage system. Discharge should be taken to an open, vegetated area for water treatment prior to entering the City of Little Rock Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System. 3 Show the proposed location of fencing and gates along with control points. Turn around must be provided for a SU-30 vehicle attempting to enter development. A stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. 4 All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 5 Repair or replace any curb, gutter, sidewalkand access ramps that are damaged and not in compliance with ADA recommendations in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 6 A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 7 Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Maintenance of the detention pond and all private drainage improvements is the responsibility of the developer and/or property owners association and detailed in the bill of assurance. 8 If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 9 With the property being adjacent to the floodplain, the minimum Finish Floor elevation of at least 1 foot above the base flood elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 10 Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information. 11 Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 12 The owner and/or manager of each multi -family residence of 100 or more dwelling units shall provide recycling and encourage participation by the tenants, renters, or owners of each unit. Contact Melinda Glasgow at 371-4646 for more information. 13 Submit a Traffic Impact Study for the proposed project. Study should address trip generation and trip distribution for the development and also should take into account existing and projected traffic growth. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page 1 of 1 Public Works Review Comments Planning Commission Agenda Date: 11-1-18 Z File Number S-1424-I Sienna Lake Revised Pre Plat Block 7 Board of Adjustment Benham Lane off Marchwood Lane 1 With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct street improvements to these streets in accordance with CLR standard details including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. The sidewalk should not be located at the back of curb. The proposed street should be at least 26 ft in width measured from back of curb to back of curb. 2 Provide a plan showing the future extensions to Benham Lane to determine the need for the installation of traffic calming within this portion of the street. Traffic calming devices are required for long straight streets to discourage speeding. Traffic circles or round -a -bouts are suggested at regular intervals and at main intersections. Contact Travis Herbner, Traffic Engr. At 379-1805 for additional info. 3 Plans of all work in right-of-way shall be submitted for approval prior to start of work. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way from Traffic Engineering at (501) 379- 1805 (Travis Herbner). 4 A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is a variance being requested to advance grade the lots with construction of the street and installation of utilities? Is any adjacent area proposed to be advanced graded for the placement of fill or for borrow material beyond the area to be platted. 5 Minimum pipe size in the City of Little Rock is 15 inch diameter. 6 The proposed HDPE pipe Is not allowed to installed within the right-of-way and drainage easements. The HDPE pipe should be replaced with HDPP pipe. 7 Curb inlets should be installed per City of Little Rock standard details PW-IA or PW-1B with the appropriate sized wing extension. 8 Comments on the drainage calculations are not included in this review. Those calculations will be reviewed at time of construction plan review. 9 Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. Maintenance of the detention pond and all private drainage improvements is the responsibility of the developer and/or property owners association. 10 If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 11 Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works must approve completed plans prior to construction. 12 Street lights are required by Section 31-403 of the LR code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Street lights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engr 379-1813 (Greg Simmons) for more info. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page l of 8 13 Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information. 14 Maximum slopes are 3:1. 15 Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of completion of harvest activities. 16 Erosion controls must be installed to reduce discharge of polluted stormwater. 17 Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 18 All public drainage easements must be unobstructed and access provided to the public right-of-way by constructed infrastructure and/or documented on the final plat. Tract O should be platted in place of the proposed drainage easements to prevent obstruction for future maintenance. 19 Hammerheads should be designed to be at least 80 ft in length and the same width as the street if the deadend is 150 ft or less. If the deadend is 151 ft to 750 ft, the hammerhead should be designed to be at least 120 ft in length and the same width as the street. If the deadend is 751 ft or more, special approval is required from the LRFD Fire Marshal. If the turnaround is temporary, an 80 ft diameter gravel turnaround is required to be installed. 20 Show proposed location(s) of USPS cluster box units in conformance with USPS and City of Little Rock policy design standards. 21 All public drainage easements must contain drainage infrastructure approved by the City of Little Rock Public Works Department. Z File Number S-1827 Mergeron Court Pre Plat 8000 Blk W. Markham St. and 1 W. Markham St. is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial with special design standards. A dedication of right-of-way 35 feet from centerline will be required. 2 Repair or replace any curb, gutter, sidewalk and access ramps that are damaged and not in compliance with ADA recommendations in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3 A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is a variance being requested to advance grade future phases with construction of Phase 1? Is a variance being requested to advance grade the lots with construction of the street? St. 4 Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. Maintenance of the detention pond and all private drainage improvements is the responsibility of the developer and/or property owners association. 5 Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186 (e). 6 If disturbed area is I or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 7 Is the proposed driveway planned to be gated? If so, a turn around must be provided for a SU-30 vehicle attempting to enter development. A stacking distance of 30 feet from Markham Pavement must also be provided. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page 2 of 8 to the 8 No residential waste collection service will be provided on private streets unless the property owners association provides a waiver of damage claims for operations on private property. 9 The private street should be constructed with a concrete entrance off Markham St. 10 Sight distance on W. Markham St. is limited. Provide a letter prepared by a registered engineer providing the available sight distance and certifying the sight distance at the intersection(s) for left turns complies with 2004 AASHTO Green Book standards. 11 Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 12 Alteration of the water course will require approval from the Little Rock District of the US Army Corps of Engineers prior to start of work. 13 The minimum Finish Floor elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 14 Street lights are required by Section 31-403 of the LR code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Street lights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engr 379-1813 (Greg Simmons) for more info. 15 Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information. 16 A minimum undisturbed strip 25 ft wide except for reasonable access shall be provided along each side of streams having a 10 yr storm > 150 cfs. The undisturbed strip should be measured from top of the bank. 17 Show proposed location(s) of USPS cluster box units in conformance with USPS and City of Little Rock policy design standards. Z File Number S-1828 Lanehart McPherson Preliminary Plat NEC Lanehart Rd & McPherson Rd 1 McPherson Rd is classified on the Master Street Plan as a residential street. A dedication of right-of- way 25 feet from centerline will be required. 2 Lanehart Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A dedication of right-of- way 30 feet from centerline will be required. 3 The west end of Street 1 to McPherson Rd is not classified as a loop street and should be constructed to a residential standard street section with a minimum of 26 ft within a 50 right-of-way. 4 Street 5 is not classified as a loop street or cul de sac and should be constructed to a residential standard street section of minimum 26 ft within a 50 right-of-way. 5 Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be installed on the west end of Street 1 and along Street 5 in accordance with Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 6 A 20 feet radial dedication of right-of-way is required at the intersection of Lanehart Road and McPherson Rd. 20 ft radial right-of-way dedication is required at all proposed street intersections. 7 With site development, provide design of street conforming to the Master Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Lanehart Road including 5-foot sidewalks with planned development. The new back of curb should be placed 18 ft from center of the existing street. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page 3 of 8 8 Repair or replace any curb, gutter, sidewalkand access ramps that are damaged and not in compliance with ADA recommendations in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 9 A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is a variance being requested to advance graded future phases with the first phase? Is a variance being requested to grade the lots with the street construction? 10 Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan with proposed pipe and ditch locations per Sec. 29-186. 11 Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Maintenance of the detention pond and all private drainage improvements is the responsibility of the developer and/or property owners association and detailed in the bill of assurance. 12 Access to detention ponds must be provided to the public right-of-way and/or access easement for future maintenance by the developer and/or local property owners' association. 13 Per Sec. 29-102 an evaluation should be conducted on the basis of existing downstream development and any analysis of stormwater runoff with and without the proposed development. If the proposed development will cause or increase downstream flooding conditions, provisions to minimize such flooding conditions should be included in the design of the storm management improvements. Such provisions may include downstream improvements and/or detention of stormwater runoff and it regulated discharge to the downstream storm drainage system. 14 If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 15 Street Improvement plans shall include signage and striping. Public Works must approve completed plans prior to construction. 16 Street lights are required by Section 31-403 of the LR code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Street lights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engr 379-1813 (Greg Simmons) for more info. 17 Obtain permits prior to doing any street cuts or curb cuts. Obtain barricade permit prior to doing any work in the right-of-way. Contact Traffic Engineering at (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information. 18 Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires approval prior to a grading pennit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information. 19 Per the Master Street Plan, parking is restricted to one side of the street on a 24 ft wide street. Show on the plan now and on the final plat and bill of assurance, the area along the street where parking is allowed. 20 Street names and street naming conventions must be approved by Public Works. It is suggested that 2 street names be used for the streets within the subdivision. Contact Glenn Haley at (501) 371-4537. 21 Vegetation must be established on disturbed area within 21 days of completion of street construction activities. 22 Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page 4 of 8 4 All driveways shall be concrete aprons per City Ordinance. 5 Repair or replace any curb, gutter, sidewalkand access ramps that are damaged and not in compliance with ADA recommendations in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 6 A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 7 Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Maintenance of the detention pond and all private drainage improvements is the responsibility of the developer and/or property owners association and detailed in the bill of assurance. 8 If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 9 With the property being adjacent to the floodplain, the minimum Finish Floor elevation of at least 1 foot above the base flood elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 10 Hauling of fill material on or off site over municipal streets and roads requires approval prior to a grading permit being issued. Contact Public Works Traffic Engineering at 621 S. Broadway, (501) 379-1805 (Travis Herbner) for more information. 11 Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 12 The owner and/or manager of each multi -family residence of 100 or more dwelling units shall provide recycling and encourage participation by the tenants, renters, or owners of each unit. Contact Melinda Glasgow at 371-4646 for more information. Z File Number Z-4470-L Chenal Park Centre Lot 3 PCD 15112 Chenal Parkway 1 All comments apply from previous approved applications. Z File Number Z-5649-G Timmons Conference Center PCD-Event Center 10915 Stagecoach Road 1 Stagecoach Road is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of- way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2 Repair or replace any curb, gutter, sidewalk and access ramps that are damaged and not in compliance with ADA recommendations in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3 Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 4 Is the proposed north driveway location the same as the existing driveway location? 5 Driveway locations and widths do not meet the traffic access and circulation requirements of Sections 30-43 and 31-210. Driveway spacing on arterial streets is 150 ft from the side property line and 300 ft between driveways. With the existing amount of frontage only, 1 driveway is allowed by code. The width of driveway must not exceed 36 feet. Variances must be requested for the proposed driveway spacing and width criteria. 6 Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186 (e). 7 Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Maintenance of the detention pond and all private drainage improvements is the responsibility of the developer and/or land owner. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page 6 of 8 23 All public drainage easements must be unobstructed and access provided to the public right-of-way by constructed infrastructure and/or documented on the final plat. The plat should show the detention pond in tract land extending to the public right-of-way. Other drainage improvements may be best maintained and unobstructed if placed in similar tract lands. 24 All public drainage easements must contain drainage infrastructure approved by the City of Little Rock Public Works Department. 25 100 year overflow swales must be constructed and placed within public drainage easements. 26 Show proposed location(s) of USPS cluster box units in conformance with USPS and City of Little Rock policy design standards. 27 No access will be allowed from the rear of the lots to the adjacent street. 28 In accordance with Section 32-8, no obstruction to visibility shall be located within a triangular area 50 ft back from the intersecting right-of-way line (or intersecting tangent lines for radial dedications) at the proposed intersection. Z File Number S-724-B Old Forge Subdivision Replat Lot 4ARR 10,000 Rodney Parham Road Show the proposed driveway locations on the plan. Repair or replace any curb, gutter, sidewalk and access ramps that are damaged and not in compliance with ADA recommendations in the public right-of-way prior to approval of the final plat or final certificate of occupancy if it follows final platting. Z File Number Z-3451-C Bennett Davis Group PCD 1300 N Shackleford Rd I N. Shackleford Rd is classified on the Master Street Plan as a collector street. A dedication of right- of-way 30 feet from centerline will be required. 2 Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be extended to the side property line in accordance with Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 3 Repair or replace any curb, gutter, sidewalkand access ramps that are damaged and not in compliance with ADA recommendations in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 4 Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Show the proposed location for stormwater detention facilities on the plan. Maintenance of the detention pond and all private drainage —1mproyetnents is the responsibility of the developer and/or land owner. Z File Num Z-3660-K Gateway Apartments Subdivision Site Plan Review 11500 Blk f Bass Pro Parkway on the east side of Bass Pro Parkway in the vicinity of the proposed driveway location. 2 Swimming pool discharge cannot be directly connected to the stormwater drainage system. Discharge should be taken to an open, vegetated area for water treatment prior to entering the City of Little Rock Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System. 3 Show the proposed location of fencing and gates along with control points. Turn around must be provided for a SU-30 vehicle attempting to enter development. _ A stacking distance of 30 feet from pavement must also be provided. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page 5 of 8 11 Provide a Sketch Grading and Drainage Plan per Sec. 29-186 (e). Z File Number Z-8814-A Nichols and Dimes Rev PD-R 1700 blk of Wilson Road 1 The proposed right-of-way dedication meet Master Street Plan requirements, Z File Number Z-9208-A 1417 Kavanaugh Blvd Rev PD-R 1417 Kavanaugh Blvd 1 Are driveway improvements proposed within the public right-of-way? New driveway aprons should be constructed per City of Little Rock driveway detail PW-30 with a 10 ft minimum width and 5 ft radius. Z File Number Z-9363 New Water Systems PD-O 7915 Hwy 300 1 Hwy 300 is classified on the Master Street Plan as a minor arterial. A dedication of right-of-way 45 feet from centerline will be required. 2 Obtain permits for improvements within State Highway right-of-way from AHTD, District VI. 3 Storm water detention ordinance applies to this property. Maintenance of the detention pond and all private drainage improvements is the responsibility of the developer and/or l 4 If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page 8 of 8 8 If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 9 A special Grading Permit for Flood Hazard Areas will be required per Sec. 8-283 prior to construction. 10 With the proposed structure being located near the floodplain, the minimum Finish Floor elevation of at least 1 ft above the base flood elevation is required to be shown on plat and grading plans. 11 In accordance with Section 31-176, floodway areas must be shown as floodway easements or be dedicated to the public. In addition, a 25 foot wide drainage and access easement is required adjacent to the floodway boundary. 12 Street lights are required by Section 31-403 of the LR code. Provide plans for approval to Traffic Engineering. Street lights must be installed prior to platting/certificate of occupancy. Contact Traffic Engr 379-1813 (Greg Simmons) for more info. 13 A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. Is an advanced grading permit being requested to advance grade future phases with construction of the first phase? Z File Number Z-6323-Y The Village at Rahling Rd Lot 6 PCD SEC Chenal Parkway & Rahling Circle the for 1 Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are required to be constructed along Chenal Parkway in accordance with Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. 2 Repair or replace any curb and gutter or sidewalk that is damaged in the public right-of-way prior to occupancy. 3 A grading permit in accordance with section 29-186 (c) & (d) will be required prior to any land clearing or grading activities at the site. Other than residential subdivisions, site grading and drainage plans must be submitted and approved prior to the start of construction. 4 If disturbed area is 1 or more acres, obtain a NPDES storm water permit from the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality prior to the start of construction. 5 With a future driveway approved on the north, in accordance with 31-210 (h)(12), access driveways running parallel to the street shall not create a four-way intersection within 75' of the curb line of street. 6 Damage to public and private property due to hauling operations or operation of construction related equipment from a nearby construction site shall be repaired by the responsible party prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 7 Retaining walls designed to exceed 15 ft in height are required to seek a variance for construction. Provide proposed wall elevations. 8 Prior to construction of retaining walls, a engineer's certification of design and plans must be submitted to Public Works for approval. After construction, an as -built certification is required construction of the retaining wall. 9 Similar to lot 4, pedestrian access should be considered from the private driveway to Lot 5 by the addition of sidewalk and access ramps, 10 Provide a graphic showing the amount of available sight distance at the west driveway with the vertical grade transition. Friday, October 05, 2018 Page 7 of 8 Hi Donna, Here are Rock Region METRO's comments for the latest packet of zoning/subdivision requests. 10000 Rodney Parham Rd: We have a stop with a bus bench at the edge of this property. As of now we don't have any comments, but we request to be kept in the loop on this one, specifically when it comes to sidewalk plans. 7915 Hwy 300: We have a stop 300 ft from this property. We request that a sidewalk that runs from the church building to the southern edge of the property be included in the plan, to better accommodate connectivity to our stop. 11500 block of Bass Pro Parkway: This site is across the street from a stop of ours. There is some connectivity between the sidewalk on Bass Pro Parkway and the proposed facilities. There does not appear to be a direct sidewalk connection between the street and the southeastern -most building in the plan (one of the buildings labelled "Building Type A Total Units 30"). We request that the sidewalk be extended from this building out to the street. 10915 Stagecoach Rd: This building is about % mile from one of our routes. We request that a sidewalk be added which goes from the street to the building on the site. Ideally, this sidewalk would cross vehicular traffic the fewest number of times. Thanks, Alex Alexander DePriest / Transit Planner Rock Region METRO 901 Maple St, North Little Rock, AR 72114 501.375.6717 x261 adepnest ca rrmen-o.org rrmetro.org $1'' Rock Region M E T R 0 To: Dana Carney, Zoning & Subdivision Manager Date: 9-26-18 Donna James, Zoning / Monte Moore, Subdivision From: Curtis Richey: Building Codes Building Code Comments: Z-6323-Y SE of Chenal at Rahling Circle Project is subject to full commercial plan review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at 501.371.4724; crick@littlerock,g_oy Z-3451-C 1300 N. Shackleford Project is subject to full commercial plan review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at 501.371.4724; crichey littlerock.gov Z-4470-L 15112 Chenal NC S-1828 NE Corner of Lanehart and McPherson NC 5-724-B 10000 Rodney Parham NC Z-9208-A 1417 Kavanaugh 1 hour fire wall at property line side for fire separation from existing residential structure is required. S-1424-1 Benham Lane off Marchwood N Z-8814-A 1700 Block of Wilson Road NC Z-9363 7915 Hwy 300 Project is subject to full commercial plan review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at 501.371.4724; crichev@littlerock.pov S-1827 8000 Block of West Markham NC Z-3660-K 11500 Block of Bass Pro Parkway Project is subject to full commercial plan review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at 501.371.4724; crichey@littlerock.go Z-5649-G 10915 Stagecoach Road Project is subject to full commercial plan review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. For information on submittal requirements and the review process, contact a commercial plans examiner: Curtis Richey at 501.371.4724; crichev@littlerock.gov Regards, Curtis Richey Commercial Plans Examiners Hi Donna, Here are Rock Region METRO's comments for the latest packet of zoning/subdivi�io>M.',° .-sts.-�� 10000 Rodney Parham Rd: We have a stop with a bus bench at the edge of this property. As of now we don't but we request to be kept in the loop on this one, specifically when it comes to si;�: w.ark pfarts 7915 Hwy 300: We have a stop 300 ft from this property. We request that a sidewalk that runs to the southern edge of the property be included in the plan, to better accomn,Jdlr]f. r ;r; ��`i�iiiyi: �'=�4't `• stop. 11500 block of Bass Pro Parkway: This site is across the street from a stop of ours. There is some connectivity Bass Pro Parkway and the proposed facilities. There does not appear to be a direr.;i;_ae�.roal�<or�caeetr�j between the street and the southeastern -most building in the plan (one of the l uiidir$r,t "Building Type A Total Units 30"). We request that the sidewalk be extended from the street. 10915 Stagecoach Rd: This building is about % mile from one of our routes. We request that a sidewalk. c e:1 w;t4cin gees. from the street to the building on the site. Ideally, this sidewalk would cross vehicu ar trf- r the-v.,zy,z number of times. Thanks, Alex Alexander DePriest i Transit Planner Rock Region METRO 901 Maple St, North Little Rock, AR 72114 501.375.6717 x261 adq9riest(@rrmetro_org =etro.org Rock Region METRO Little Rock Water Reclamation Authority Comments Project Number S-1424-I Project Name Project Type Comment Made Sienna Lake Block 7 Preliminary Plat Sewer main extension required with easements if new sewer service is required for this project. Zero Capacity Fee Required Project Number S-1827 Project Name Project Type Comment Made Mergeron Court Zero Lot Line Single Family residential Sewer main extension required with easements if new sewer service is required for this project. Project Number S-1828 `Project Name Project Type Comment Made Lanehart McPherson Single Family Preliminary Plat Sewer main extension required with easements if new Preliminary Plat sewer service is required for this project. Project Number S-724-B Project Name Project Type Comment Made Lot 4 ARR Old Forge Replat - reduction in bldg line Sewer Available to this site. Subdiv. Replat Project Number Z-3451-C Project Name Project Type Comment Made Bennett Davis Group Planned Development: Commercial Sewer Available to this site. Retain any existing sewer easement. Grease trap analysis req'd if food service on site. Project Number Z-3660-K Project Name Project Type Comment Made Gateway Apartments Subdivision - Multiple Building Site Sewer main extension required with easements if new Subdivision Plan Review sewer service is required for this project. Capacity Fee Analysis Required. Project Number Z-4470-L Project Name Project Type Comment Made Lot 3 Chenal Park Centre Planned Development: Commercial- Sewer Available to this site. Retain any existing sewer Allow sign easement. Grease trap analysis req'd if food service on site. Project Number Z-5649-G Project Name Project Type Comment Made Tuesday, October 2, 2018 Page 1 of 2 Timmons Conference Planned Development: Commercial - Retain easement for Exist. 18" sewer. Sewer main Center Events Center extension required with easements if new sewer service is required for this project. Grease trap Analysis Required Project Number Z-6323-Y Project Name Project Type Comment Made Lot 6 The Village at Rahling Planned Development: Commercial Sewer Available to this site. Grease trap analysis req'd Road if food service on site. Project Number Z-8814-A Project Name Project Type Comment Made Nichols and Dimes Planned Development: Residential - Sewer Available to this site. replat 2 lots to 4 Project Number Z-9208-A Project Name Project Type Comment Made 1417 Kavanaugh Blvd. Planned Development: Residential Sewer Available to this site. Project Number Z-9363 Project Narrye New Water Systems Project Type Comment Made Planned Development: Office Outside Service Boundary - No Comment. Tuesday, October 2, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Carney, Dana From: Vincent Hotho <Steven.Hotho@lrwra.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 11:10 AM To: PATRICK MCGETRICK Cc: Carney, Dana Subject: Mergeron Court Sewer easements Patrick, All sewer easements in which there are existing sewer mains or services must be retained, however LRWRA does not object to reducing the 20' easement down to 10' wide, as it runs east -west, where there is no existing sewer main. Thank you, Vince Vince Hotho Engineering Program Supervisor 11 Clearwater Dr. Little Rock, AR 72204 Office: (501)688-1452 www.Irwra.com LITTLE ROCK T Water r1odamatio n NE WATER And6NLpuvi1rt i: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender. This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the individual narned. 10/30/2018 Print Subject: Mergeron Court Sewer easements From: Vincent Hotho (Steven.Hotho@lrwra.com) To: mcgetrick2@sbcglobal.net; Cc: DCarney@littlerock.gov; Date: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 11:10 AM Patrick, All sewer easements in which there are existing sewer mains or services must be retained, however LRWRA does not object to reducing the 20' easement down to 10' wide, as it runs east -west, where there is no existing sewer main. Thank you, Vince Vince Hotho Engineering Program Supervisor 11 Clearwater Dr. Little Rock, AR 72204 Office: (501)688-1452 www.Irwra.com LITTLE ROCK Water Reclamation r. ONE WATER_ 1' ONE FUTURE. 40 poo This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender. This message may contain confidential information, and is intended only for the individual named. Attachments • lrwrca-logo-25_65dd55cc-157c-4b84-9c99-412lel7893cd.jpg (10.52KB) about:blank 1/1 To: Donna James From: Captain Tony Rhodes / Captain John Hogue: Fire Marshal Comment for the following Locations: Z-6323-Y Southwest corner of Chenal Parkway Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Date: October 1, 2018 Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Commercial and Industrial Developments — 2 means of access. - Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Section D104.2 Building exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provide with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all building are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 30' Tall Buildings - Maintain aerial fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D105.1— D105.4 D105.1 Where Required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceed 30', approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For the purposes of this section the highest roof surfaces shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of a roof to the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed with of 26', exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. D105.3 Proximity to building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. D105.4 Obstructions. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. Other obstructions shall be permitted to be places with the approval of the fire code official. r)Pnrl Fnrlc_ Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F 2200. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. Z-3451-C 1300 North Shackleford Full plan review Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 1Q percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Commercial and Industrial Developments — 2 means of access. - Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Section D104.2 Building exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provide with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all building are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 30' Tall Buildings - Maintain aerial fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D105.1 — D105.4 13105.1 Where Required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceed 30', approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For the purposes of this section the highest roof surfaces shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of a roof to the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed with of 26', exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. D105.3 Proximity to building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. D105.4 Obstructions. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. Other obstructions shall be permitted to be places with the approval of the fire code official. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F 2200. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. Z-4470-L 15112 Chenal Parkway Full plan review Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or,other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. 30' Tall Buildings - Maintain aerial fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D105.1— D105.4 D105.1 Where Required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceed 30', approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For the purposes of this section the highest roof surfaces shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of a roof to the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed with of 26', exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. D105.3 Proximity to building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. D105.4 Obstructions. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. Other obstructions shall be permitted to be places with the approval of the fire code official. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F 2200. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. S-1828 Northeast Corner of Lanehart Road and McPherson Road Full plan review Maintain Access: FireHydra,nts., Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F 2200. One- or Two-Familv Residential Developments. As per Appendix D, Section D107.1 of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1, One- or Two -Family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3. Exceptions: 1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus access road and al dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the Arkansas Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required. 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. S-724-B 10000 Rodnev Parham Road Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol- 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Commercial and Industrial Developments — 2 means of access. - Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Section D104.2 Building exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provide with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all building are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F 2200. One- or Two-Familv Residential Developments. As per Appendix D, Section 13107.1 of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1, One- or Two -Family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3. Exceptions: Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus access road and al dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the Arkansas Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required. 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. Fire Hvdrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. Z-9208-A 1417 Kavanaugh No comment S-1424-1 Benham Lane Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Commercial and Industrial Developments — 2 means of access. - Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Section D104.2 Building exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provide with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all building are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler, systems. D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F 2200. One- or Two -Family Residential Developments. As per Appendix D, Section D107.1 of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1, One- or Two -Family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3. Exceptions: Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus access road and al dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the Arkansas Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required. 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. Z-8814-A 1700 Block of Wilson Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. Z-9363 7915 HWY 300 Full plan review Maintain Access: Fire Hvdrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2p12 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Commercial and Industrial Developments — 2 means of access. - Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Section D104.2 Building exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provide with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all building are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 30' Tall Buildings - Maintain aerial fire ap aratus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D105.1— D105.4 D105.1 Where Required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceed 30', approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For the purposes of this section the highest roof surfaces shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of a roof to the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed with of 26', exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. D105.3 Proximity to building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. D105.4 Obstructions. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. Other obstructions shall be permitted to be places with the approval of the fire code official. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F 2200. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. S-1827 8000 Block of West Markham Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26.feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Commercial and Industrial Developments — 2 means of access. - Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Section D104.2 Building exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provide with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all building are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. ❑ne- or Two -Family Residential Developments. As per Appendix D, Section D107.1 of the Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1, One- or Two -Family dwelling residential developments. Developments of one- or two-family dwellings where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads, and shall meet the requirements of Section D104.3. Exceptions: 1. Where there are more than 30 dwelling units on a single public or private fire apparatus access road and al dwelling units are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the Arkansas Fire Code, access from two directions shall not be required. 2. The number of dwelling units on a single fire apparatus access road shall not be increased unless fire apparatus access roads will connect with future development, as determined by the fire code official. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. Z-3660-K 11500 Block of Bass Pro Par Full clan review Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Loading Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Commercial and Industrial Developments — 2 means of access. - Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Section D104.2 Building exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provide with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all building are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 30' Tall Buildings - Maintain aerial fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D105.1— D105.4 D105.1 Where Required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceed 30', approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For the purposes of this section the highest roof surfaces shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of a roof to the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed with of 26', exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. D105.3 Proximity to building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. D105.4 Obstructions. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. Other obstructions shall be permitted to be places with the approval of the fire code official. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. 9. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of ASTM F 2200. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. Z-5649-G 10915 Stagecoach Road Full elan review Maintain Access: Fire Hydrants. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at fire hydrant locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant. Where a fire hydrant is located on a fire apparatus access road, the minimum road width shall be 26 feet, exclusive of shoulders. Grade Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.2 Grade. Fire apparatus access roads shall not exceed 10 percent in grade except as approved by the fire chief. Lo_adin Maintain fire apparatus access road design as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D102.1 Access and loading. Facilities, buildings or portions of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to fire department apparatus by way of an approved fire apparatus access road with an asphalt, concrete or other approved driving surface capable of supporting the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. Commercial and Industrial Developments — 2 means of access. - Maintain fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D104.1 Buildings exceeding three stories or 30 feet in height. Building or facilities exceeding 30 feet or three stories in height shall have at least two means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Section D104.2 Building exceeding 62,000 square feet in area. Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 square feet shall be provide with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all building are equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. D104.3 Remoteness. Where two fire apparatus access roads are required, they shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the lot or area to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. 30' Tall Buildings - Maintain aerial fire apparatus access roads as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D105.1— D105.4 D105.1 Where Required. Where the vertical distance between the grade plane and the highest roof surface exceed 30', approved aerial fire apparatus access roads shall be provided. For the purposes of this section the highest roof surfaces shall be determined by measurement to the eave of a pitched roof, the intersection of a roof to the exterior wall, or the top of the parapet walls, whichever is greater. D105.2 Width. Aerial fire apparatus access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed with of 26', exclusive of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of the building or portion thereof. D105.3 Proximity to building. At least one of the required access routes meeting this condition shall be located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the building, and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building. The side of the building on which the aerial fire apparatus access road is positioned shall be approved by the fire code official. D105.4 Obstructions. Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located over the aerial fire apparatus access road or between the aerial fire apparatus road and the building. Other obstructions shall be permitted to be places with the approval of the fire code official. Dead Ends. Maintain fire apparatus access roads at dead end locations as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.4 Dead Ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet shall be provided with width and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D103.4. Requirements for Dead-end fire apparatus access roads. Gates Maintain fire apparatus access road gates as per Appendix D of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code Vol. 1 Section D103.5 Fire apparatus access road gates. Gates securing the fire apparatus access roads shall comply with all of the following criteria: 1. Minimum gate width shall be 20 feet. 2. Gates shall be of swinging or sliding type. 3. Construction of gates shall be of material that allow manual operation by one person. 4. Gate components shall be maintained in an operable condition at all times and replaces or repaired when defective. 5. Electric gates shall be equipped with a means of opening the gate by fire department personnel for emergency access. Emergency opening devices shall be approved by the fire code official. 6. Manual opening gates shall not be locked with a padlock or chain and padlock unless they are capable of being opened by means of forcible entry tools or when a key box containing the keys to the lock is installed at the gate location. 7. Locking device specifications shall be submitted for approval \by the fire code official 8. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates, intended for automatic operation shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with requirements of A$TM F 2200. Fire Hydrants Locate Fire Hydrants as per Appendix C of the 2012 Arkansas Fire Prevention Code. Section C101— C105, in conjunction with Central Arkansas Water (Daniel Tull 501-377-1245) and the Little Rock Fire Marshals Office (Capt. Tony Rhodes 501-918-3757 or Capt. John Hogue 501-918-3754). Number and Distribution of Fire Hydrants as per Table C105.1. Regards, Captain Rhodes and Captain Hogue Office: 918-3710 Carney, Dana From: Carney, Dana Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:34 AM To: 'mcgetrick2@sbcglobal.net' Subject: FW: Mergeron Plat Pat: Please let me know you got this. Advise what you are going to do in response to FD's comment Dana Carney, Zoning and Subdivision Manager Department of Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-6817 From: Moore, Monte Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:58 AM To: Carney, Dana <DCarney@littlerock.gov> Subject: FW: Mergeron Plat From: Collins, Gilbert Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:50 AM To: Moore, Monte; Malone, Walter Subject: FW: Mergeron Plat Please let the engineer and/or the developer that the Fire Marshalls office is requiring the turnaround per fire code. From: Hubbard, Delphone Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:48 AM To: Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov> Subject: FW: Mergeron Plat Jamie, this is the response of the Fire Marshal From: Salaam, Naim Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 11:41 AM To: Hubbard, Delphone <dhubbard@littlerock.eov> Cc: Rhodes, Tony <TRhodes@little rock.gov>; Hogue, John <JHogue@littlerock.gov> Subject: Re: Mergeron Plat Chief Hubbard I've talked to my team about the requirements for a turn -around and they advised they have stayed with the requirements as stated in Arkansas Fire Code. The reason is to ensure Fire Apparatuses are able to turn around appropriately. Another consideration we have to take into account are the vehicles that are parked within the turn -around, that may cause further issues by reducing the diameter within the turn- around. Thanks Naim Salaam Chief Fire Marshal Office 501-918-3780 Work cell 501-607-0998 Fax 918-3734 nsalaam@littlerock.gov From: Salaam, Naim Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 8:26 AM To: Hogue, John; Hubbard, Delphone Cc: Rhodes, Tony Subject: Re: Mergeron Plat The roadway width appears to meet the 26 ft width, now the 96 foot with diameter circle I'm unable to determine that according to the drawing. We also need to know what the concern is as well so we can be more specific in regards to the Fire Code. Naim Salaam Chief Fire Marshal Office 501-918-3780 Work cell 501-607-0998 Fax 918-3734 nsalaam@littlerock.Rov From: Hogue, John Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 8:12 AM To: Salaam, Naim; Hubbard, Delphone Cc: Rhodes, Tony Subject: RE: Mergeron Plat Chief, I have attached the code about turnarounds . 2 The provisions contained in dais appendix are not mandatory unless sperifltaiTy referenced iA the adopling ordinance SECTION 0101 GENERAL D10I.1 Scope. Fire apparatus .access roads snail he in acccir- lance with this appendix and all other applicable require- ments of the Arkansas Fire 11Avendon Code, Volume F. Requests for exceptions to Appendix D may be .appealed to ?he State Fire Marshal, SECTION DI02 REQUIRED ACCESS 1.1102.1 Access and loading, Facilities, buildings or ptirtiorm of buildings hereafter constructed shall be accessible to lire lepartment apparatus by way of an approved fine apparatus access road with an asphalt. concrete or other approved driv- ing surface capable of supporting the imposed land of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds (34 050 ks). SECTION D103 MINIMUM SPECIFICA71ONS D103.1 Access road width with a hydrant Where a 1-irc aydram is located on a fire apparatus .access road, the mini- mum road width shall be 26 feet (79 5 n m), exclusive of shoulders (see Figure D103,1I- D1031 Grade. hire apparatus access roads shall not ex 10 percent in grade. Exception: Grades steeper than 10 percent as approve the fire chief. D103.3 Turning radius. The minimum turning radius be determined by theft re code official. D103A Dead ends. Dead-end fire apparatus access mai excess of 150 feet (45 720 mm) shall be provided with v and turnaround provisions in accordance with Table D Ill TABLE D103-4 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS LENGTH 0-t) WIDTH (IM) TURNAROUNDS REQUIRED (�_l50 20 Tone required 130-foot Hammerhead. CD -foot 151-5Ct7 Tel or 9&Fbot diameter cul-de-sac in acomdanee with Frau re D 103.1 120-€got Hammerhead. F,afoot .. 501 750 26 or ETC -foot diameter cul-de-sac in acmirdance with Figure D 103.1 Over 750 SI;Lcial approval requis-rd FOrSI: I rcM= 3G4.8 mrm. 0 20' 9e8' 2T R 26. 2B" R TYR R 2(I, 2( 21Y 2Q` 98-FOOTDIAMETER 60_FOOT•Y" MIN ILIUMCLEARANCE CUL-DE-SAC AROUND A FIRE HYDR 6NT lsr3t: I r00r=3M'.9n11M_ TYR 28' R TYR 2V 12W 20' 120-FOOTHAMMERHEAD ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE TO 120-FOOT HAMMERHEAD FIGURE D1021A DEAD-END FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROAD TURNAROUND FIRE AUHAL°S DIVISION LITTLE ROCK FIRE DEPARTMENT 6,24 S. CHESTER ST,, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72201 OFFICE (501.) 918--3754 CELL: (501) 631-5440 FAX: (501) 916-3779 From: Salaam, Naim Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 10:46 AM To: Hubbard, Delphone Cc: Hogue, John; Rhodes, Tony Subject: Re: Mergeron Plat OK. Will have them check to ensure it meets Fire Code for turnarounds. Naim Salaam Chief Fire Marshal Office 501-918-3780 Work cell 501-607-0998 Fax 918-3734 ns a la a m @ I ittlerockgov From: Hubbard, Delphone Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 10:29 AM To: Salaam, Naim Cc: Hogue, John; Rhodes, Tony Subject: FW: Mergeron Plat Chief, I spoke with Jamie Collins yesterday in regards to a concern someone had in regards to the turnaround in the attached drawings From: Collins, Gilbert Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 2:02 PM To: Hubbard, Delphone <dhubbard littlerock. ov> Subject: Mergeron Plat Delphone, Attached is the plat we spoke of. Jamie Collins, PE Director City of Little Rock Planning and Development 723 W. Markham Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Phone: 501-371-6818 1 Fax: 501-399-3435 httod1www-littlerock.gov/ 4 En tergy September 28, 2018 City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development ATTN: Ms. Donna James, AICP 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Entergy Arkansas Inc. #9 Entergy Court Little Rock. AR 72211 RE: Entergy comments related to Planning and Zoning items for the November 15t Meeting Ms. James, Please find below Entergy's comments related to the items received from the Department of Planning and Development this week. The request letter said to have the comments back to you by October 10"', 2018. Lots 6 The Village at Rahling Rd Short —form PCD — SE corner Chenal Pkwy and Rahling Circle — Z-6323-Y Entergy does not object to this proposal. There do not appear to be any conflicts with existing electrical utilities at this location. Entergy is in the process of installing new, underground electrical lines running along the north side of Chenal Parkway at this location. Please work with Entergy to determine that installed wires will be deep enough so that the customer will not have to pay to adjust them in the future when the entrance road is cut in. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, or adjustments to existing facilities. • Bennett Davis Group Short -form PCD —1300 N Shackelford Rd.— Z-3451-C Entergy does not object to this proposal. There may be an overhead service line feeding the existing building on the north side of the structure. Care should be used in installing the expanded parking lot in this area so that all NESC (code) required clearances are maintained during and after construction. As this project develops this power line may need to be adjusted. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds. Lot 3 Chenal Park Centre Short -form PCD —15112 Chenal Pkwy. — Z-4470-L Entergy does not object to this proposal. However, there is an existing underground power line which runs through this development which should not be impacted by this proposal. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds. • Lanehart McPherson Prelim. Plat — NE corner Lanehart & McPherson — S-1828 Entergy does not object to this proposal. There is an existing three phase, overhead power line on the north side of Lanehart Road on the south side of this development. Construction of any structure must maintain clearances between the structure and the power lines according to OSHA and NESC (code) requirements. All required separations and clearances to power lines must be maintained during and after construction. It is difficult to determine from the plat what that separation will be. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds. Lot 4ARR Old Forge Subdiv Replat —10000 Rodney Parham Rd. — S-724-B Entergy does not object to this proposal. There do not appear to be any conflicts with existing electrical utilities at this location. It appears that service is already being provided to the existing structure. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, extensions, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds. • 1417 Kavanaugh Blvd. Revised Short form PD-R —1417 Kavanaugh - Z-9208-A Entergy does not object to this proposal. There is an existing single phase, overhead power line on the south side of this lot in the vicinity of the proposed garage. Construction of any structure must maintain clearances between the structure and the power lines according to OSHA and NESC (code) requirements. All required separations and clearances to power lines must be maintained during and after construction. It is difficult to determine from the plat what that separation will be. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds. Sienna Lake Revised Prelim. Plat — Benham Ln. off of Marchwood Ln. — S-1424-I Entergy does not object to this proposal. Underground service is already provided in this area to existing residences at the NW edge of the proposed project. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, extensions, or adjustments to existing facilities. Nichols and Dimes Revised Short form PD-R —1700 block Wilson Rd. — Z-8814-A Entergy does not object to this proposal. There do not appear to be any conflicts with existing electrical utilities at this location. A single phase, overhead power line runs along the east side of Wilson Street and along the south side of 181h Street. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, power line extension, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds. • New Water Systems Short -form PD-O — 7915 Hwy 300 — Z-9363 Entergy does not object to this proposal. There is an existing three phase, overhead power line on the west side of highway 300 and another one on the south side of the property. Care should be used when working around the power lines/poles — especially when constructing the proposed metal building. All required separations and clearances to power lines must be maintained during and after construction. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds. • Mergeron Court Prelim. Plat — 8000 Blk. West Markham St. — 5-1827 Entergy does not object to this proposal. There do not appear to be any conflicts with existing electrical utilities at this location. Single phase, overhead power lines run along the east and west side of this proposed development. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, extensions, or adjustments to existing facilities (if any) as this project proceeds. ■ Gateway Apts. Subdiv. Site Plan Review —11500 Blk. Of Bass pro Pkwy. - Z-3660-K Entergy does not object to this proposal. There do not appear to be any conflicts with existing electrical utilities at this location. There is an existing three phase, underground power line along the west side of Bass Pro Parkway which should be located and avoided during the construction of this project. Contact Entergy in advance to discuss electrical service requirements, or adjustments to existing facilities (if needed). • Timmons Conference Center Long -form PCD —10915 Stagecoach Rd. — Z-5649-G Entergy Distribution does not object to this proposal. There do not appear to be any Distribution conflicts with existing electrical utilities at this location. However, an Entergy Transmission line crosses the property from NE to SW over some proposed parking area and proposed dumpster locations on the Transmission easement. Contact should be made with Entergy's Transmission department to determine if there are any conflicts concerning the Transmission line and the proposed project before work is begun. Contact the Entergy Distribution group in advance to discuss electrical service requirements to the proposed building as this project proceeds.. If you need further assistance you may call me at 501-954-5158 or e-mail me at bneumei@entergy.com. Sincerely, Bernard Neumeier, P.E. Region Engineering Supervisor Entergy Arkansas, Inc. James, Donna From: Alexander DePriest <ADePriest@rrmetro.org> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 8:59 AM To: James, Donna Subject: Comments, 24 Sept 2018 packet Hi Donna, Here are Rock Region METRO's comments for the latest packet of zoning/subdivision requests. 10000 Rodney Parham Rd: We have a stop with a bus bench at the edge of this property. As of now we don't have any comments, but we request to be kept in the loop on this one, specifically when it comes to sidewalk plans. 7915 Hwy 300: We have a stop 300 ft from this property. We request that a sidewalk that runs from the church building to the southern edge of the property be included in the plan, to better accommodate connectivity to our stop. 11500 block of Bass Pro Parkway: This site is across the street from a stop of ours. There is some connectivity between the sidewalk on Bass Pro Parkway and the proposed facilities. There does not appear to be a direct sidewalk connection between the street and the southeastern -most building in the plan (one of the buildings labelled "Building Type A Total Units 30"). We request that the sidewalk be extended from this building out to the street. 10915 Stagecoach Rd: This building is about % mile from one of our routes. We request that a sidewalk be added which goes from the street to the building on the site. Ideally, this sidewalk would cross vehicular traffic the fewest number of times. Thanks, Alex Alexander DePriest i Transit Planner Rock Region METRO 901 Maple St, North Little Rock, AR 72114 501.375.6717 x261 adepriest@ametro.org rrmetro. org ,. Rack Regian METRO Z-3451-C Address: 1300 North Shackleford Planning Division: This request is located in Rodney Parham Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Office (0) for this property. The office category represents services provided directly to consumers (e.g., legal, financial, medical) as well as general offices which support more basic economic activities. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from POD (Planned Office Development) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow an events and an expanded parking lot and overflow parking. Master Street Plan: East of the property is North Shackleford Road and it is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector Road is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There is a Class III Bike Route shown on North Shackleford Road. These bike routes require no additional right-of-way, but either a sign or pavement marking to identify and direct the route. Z-4470-L Address: 15112 Chenal Parkway Planning Division: This request is located in Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial (C) for this property. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from C-2 (Shopping Center District) to PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to allow a development sign serving the rear 2 lots. Master Street Plan: South of the property is Chenal Parkway and is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Principal Arterial Street is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generator or activity centers within an urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chenal Parkway since it is a Principal Arterial. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: Class I Bike Path is shown along the Rock Creek Parkway. A Bike Path is to be a paved path physically separate for the use of bicycles. Additional right-of-way or an easement is recommended. Nine -foot paths are recommended to allow for pedestrian use as well (replacing the sidewalk). Z-5649-G Address: 10915 Stagecoach Road Planning Division: This request is located in OtterCreek Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Mixed Office and Commercial (MOC) for this property. The Mixed Office and Commercial category provides for a mixture of office and commercial uses to occur. Acceptable uses are office or mixed office and commercial. A Planned Zoning District is required if the use is mixed office and commercial. The applicant has applied for a revised PCD (Planned Commercial Development) to add an Events Center as an allowable use. Master Street Plan: North of the property is Stagecoach Road and it is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Stagecoach Road. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicvcle Plan: A Class II Bike Lane is shown along Stagecoach Road. Bike Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles. Class I Bike Path is shown along Fourche Creek. A Bike Path is to be a paved path physically separate for the use of bicycles. Additional right-of-way or an easement is recommended. Nine -foot paths are recommended to allow for pedestrian use as well (replacing the sidewalk). Z-6323-Y Address: Southeast corner of Chenal Parkway and Rahling Circle PlannL Division: This request is located in Chenal Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Commercial (C) for this property. The Commercial category includes a broad range of retail and wholesale sales of products, personal and professional services, and general business activities. Commercial activities vary in type and scale, depending on the trade area that they serve. The applicant has applied for a revised PCD (Planned Commercial Development) Commercial Development) to allow a proposed building with a deck. This site is within the Chenal Design Overlay District. Master Street Plan: East of the property is Rahling Circle and it shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. West of the property is Chenal Parkway and is shown as a Principal Arterial on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. The primary function of a Principal Arterial Street is to serve through traffic and to connect major traffic generator or activity centers within an urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Chenal Parkway since it is a Principal Arterial. These streets may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: Class I Bike Path is shown along Chenal Parkway. A Bike Path is to be a paved path physically separate for the use of bicycles. Additional right-of- way or an easement is recommended. Nine -foot paths are recommended to allow for pedestrian use as well (replacing the sidewalk). Z-8814-A Address: 1700 Block of Wilson Road Planning Division: This request is located in 1430 Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property. The Residential Low Density is for single-family homes at densities no greater than six dwelling units per acre. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from PD-R (Planned District Residential) to PRD (Planned Residential Development) to allow a replat of 2 lots into 4 lots with a duplex on each lot. Master Street Plan: East of the property is Wilson Road and 18th Street south are both shown as a Local Street on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Local Street is to provide access to adjacent properties. Local Streets that are abutted by non-residential zoning/use or more intensive zoning than duplexes are considered as "Commercial Streets". A Collector design standard is used for Commercial Streets. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: There are no bike routes shown in the immediate vicinity. Z-9208-A Address: 1417 Kavanaugh Boulevard Planning Division: This request is located in Heights Hillcrest Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential High Density (RH) for this property. The Residential High Density Category accommodates residential development of more than twelve (12) dwelling units per acre. The applicant has applied for a revised PD-R (Planned Development Residential) to convert the main structure from 4 units to one and an keep the one accessory unit while added a second accessory building resulting in DOD issues. This site is within the Hillcrest Design Overlay District. Master Street Plan: North of the property is Kavanaugh Boulevard and it is shown as a Collector on the Master Street Plan. The primary function of a Collector Road is to provide a connection from Local Streets to Arterials. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan_: There is a Class III Bike Route shown on Kavanaugh Boulevard. These bike routes require no additional right-of-way, but either a sign or pavement marking to identify and direct the route. Z-9363 Address: 7915 Highway 300 Planning Division. This request is located in Barrett Planning District. The Land Use Plan shows Residential Low Density (RL) for this property. The Residential Low Density is for single-family homes at densities no greater than six dwelling units per acre. The applicant has applied for a rezoning from R-2 (Single Family District) to PD-O (Planned Development Office) to allow a water treatment company with an office and supplies outside as an allowable use. Master Street Plan: East of the property is Highway 300 and it is shown as a Minor Arterial on the Master Street Plan. Minor Arterial provides connections to and through an urban area and their primary function is to provide short distance travel within the urbanized area. Entrances and exits should be limited to minimize negative effects of traffic and pedestrians on Highway 300. This street may require dedication of right-of-way and may require street improvements for entrances and exits to the site. Bicycle Plan: A Class II Bike Lane is shown along Highway 300. Bike Lanes provide a portion of the pavement for the sole use of bicycles. Carney, Dana From: Catherine Johnson <kafrum@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 11:15 AM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Updated petition, Mergeron Court Attachments: Mergeron Court petition 11118.pdf, ATT00001.htm Dana, We have had some more signatures and comments added to our petition to oppose Mergeron Court. I'm attaching the updated version for the official file. The new count is 258 signatures, with 90 comments. Please count all as opposed for the official record. Here's a link to the full online version, in case that's needed for verification: htt s://www.i etitions.com! etitionldont-allow-the-develo ment-of mer eron-court Thank you! Catherine Johnson From iPetitions.com 11 /1 /2018 Don't allow the development of Mergeron Court on Markham across from Brady Elementary 90 Comments 258 Signatures Petition A request has been made for a proposed development between the Markham and Mississippi and the Markham and Rodney Parham intersections by Rodney Chandler, owner of Icon Development and Homes, LLC in Little Rock. The site of the proposed 12-house development is the 2.15 acre lot between the Wingate and Kaylin Hills neighborhoods, accessed off Markham directly across from Brady Elementary, proposed to be known as Mergeron Court. It is currently all green space. The community is adamantly opposed to this development. Chief among concerns are exacerbating existing drainage and flooding issues and increasing traffic in the Brady Elementary school zone. This will also destroy vital green space and wildlife and cause noise and air pollution. We respectfully ask the board NOT to approve the preliminary plat. This area is already prone to flooding and drainage issues. The property in question is the low point in a geographic bowl. A topographical map shows that water from 450 acres (from Cantrell Road south to Markham Street) drains into the creek adjacent to this property. When the creek is high, properties all along it already experience flooding. The creek is already at capacity, and this green space is absolutely vital to absorbing rainfall and slowing the water flow into the creek. The developer has said his development will pave over most of this green space. No hydrological studies have been made. Further, the entrance to this development will be directly across from Brady Elementary, causing increased traffic and additional safety issues. This will add another entrance/exit to the busy street as well as more cars and traffic exactly where students are being dropped off and picked up. Please share this information with your neighbors, friends and on social media. COMMENTS Georgeann Streett Nov 01, 2018 It's simple: too many entrances directly onto Markham increase traffic accidents. And across from a elementary school, even more so!! Too much earth covered in pavement and roof tops increase flash flooding!! Amanda Paige Nov 01, 2018 This development is the last thing this city needs and will destroy the midtown area! This will become an eyesore and destroy a much needed green area in the city! Plus don't start on increased flooding danger! Homer E Hartsell Oct 30, 2018 NO TO THE DEVELOPMENT Joseph Troll Oct 28, 2018 Given the objection to this development is factual including "The developer has said his development will pave over most of this green space. No hydrological studies have been made." I can see no reason to think that the development by a high end contractor will have neighborhood/environmental/traffic safety impact as a priority. I would hope the Planning Commission Members would consider these arguments in their deliberation. Marsha Winters Oct 28, 2018 Traffic is already very bad on Markham, especially at certain times of the day. To increase that traffic, especially across from an elementary school is a very bad idea. Little Rock needs its green spaces as well, not more concrete. The water flow issues and creek need to be evaluated Norman BrownOct 28, 2018 Stop this development before it starts. Traffic congestion and destruction of green space are always accompanied by noise and air pollution. Protecting green space is a quality of life issue for all of us in Little Rock. Ann Marshall Sep 28, 2018 LR must balance new development with the city's existing infrastructure and budget, which isn't adequate for expanding drainage systems and handling additional road traffic. Nina Moler Sep 27, 2018 You had me at "no hydrological studies have been done." I'm in. Shelle Stormoe Sep 26, 2018 This development will be a real detriment to the community. Tracy Crain Sep 25, 2018 1 was listening to the City Hall live broadcast when they were debating the addition of new homes near the Target on Markham. While there was opposition, (many of the arguments were similar to what is listed here, bar one) the measure was not prevented. One of the council members stated that it would negatively impact existing property value on nearby older homes, but that the new development was a necessity of area doctors and other potential residents. With that said, the measure did pass. This will be a second new home construction initiative in the vicinity. I have neighbors who have not been able to sell their older homes. With the addition of new homes, that is going to impact older homes all the more. They are having to redo a part of the street off Markham to accommodate turning where the new homes will be built. This is a tough battle and one that I have fought myself in the not so distant past. It was very difficult to make City Hall see anything other than the potential for new revenue. If you build new homes beside old ones ... will new buyers be more interested in the new or the old? Further, what is the pricing range for the new homes? Are they low income? Gentrification efforts come at a high cost to those who already live in the area. Further, low new home prices could drastically hurt homeowners who cannot sell their houses now. Is this project really necessary? What research shows their is a need for more housing? We have plenty of empty homes and not a lot of buyers. Lolita Nurmamade Sep 22, 2018 Listen to the wise parents please. Thank you LaDonna Topich Sep 22, 2018 1 am opposed to this. Michelle Nichols Sep 21, 2018 1 do not want this development to be approved!! It would have a profoundly negative impact on my Wingate neighbors. Pam Powell Sep 21, 2018 Not opposed to appropriate development; when neighbors raise concerns, it should not be taken as an attack, but should be taken as something to work through so that it is a win win. I certainly would not want to buy a home only to have it flood! Janice Ammann Sep 21, 2018 1 1 You can also contact Capi Peck. She is ward director for ward 4 which covers this area. Everyone send her an email and let her know that we want to KEEP IT GREEN!!!!!! capi222@ sbcgfobal. net Bob Davis Sep 21, 2018 1 oppose the proposed plan for building. Anonymous Sep 21, 2018 Mid -town needs to preserve whatever small green spaces remain. This misguided project will be detrimental to the water shed. It will also add unnecessary congestion to an already clogged and overtaxed traffic situation on Markham, Rodney Parham, and Mississippi. Robbye Flynn Sep 21, 2018 1 live in adjacent neighborhood, Leawood, and oppose this development. Kathleen Evans Sep 21, 2018 Already congested. No need for more. Plus run off water a problem in that area already. Patrick Herrera Sep 21, 2018 1 am against this new development. We don't need to eliminate more green space. This proposed development doesnt even match the existing neighborhood structures and feel. Dr Karen Kittler Hunter Sep 20, 2018 Do not develop this area! The impact clearly has not been examined. Janice Ammann Sep 20, 2018 2 1 see meeting has been postponed until nov 1st. Who is leading this petition group? Please tell us what we need to do to fight this. I am afraid everyone is so busy that it will be put on back burner and lose the energy of the movement. Let's keep working to get more people involved. Who can I contact to help? Kenneth Mayo Sep 20, 2018 Respect the wishes of the community Jo Nell Chastain Sep 20, 2018 Please leave it alone! Karolyn Thompson Sep 19, 2018 Do NOT build! Jeffrey D Thatcher Sep 19, 2018 1 live in Leawood in midtown Little Rock and strongly oppose this proposed development due to major concerns with serious flooding and safety issues. The developer indicates he plans to pave over 70% of this green space with no hydrological studies having been done. This is an ill-advised use of this property. Please do not sanction it. Tamey Craig Sep 19, 2018 1 agree with all comments - leave something green! There is no shortage of housing or apartments (being built on every vacant land). Quit wasting. Besides the trees - thoughtful consideration should be given to the new development's effects on existing homeowners in the area! William Steele Sep 19, 2018 1 Can't let this happen. What can we do? Martha Gueringer Sep 19, 2018 Listen to the people we're supposed to count leave something green Bill King Sep 19, 2018 This is a terrible idea. There are plenty of open lots for this developer elsewhere. Robert ammann Sep 19, 2018 Don't let them build on this small green space. Can't we keep any trees and nature! Mary Steele Sep 19, 2018 What? The last green space in midtown?!? Why would you ever consider this? Eva Riggs Sep 19, 2018 Please don't develop this property Mary Middleton Sep 19, 2018 Please do what the community wants and don't build houses here. Leave what little green space we have left alone. Janice ammann Sep 19, 2018 Please keep this small green space. Don't allow them to tear it down and build. Listen to your community. Susan Eschenbrenner Sep 18, 2018 1 am very much against this development. Steven Barger Sep 18, 2018 The reasons this land was protected as a green space several years ago have not changed. If anything, they've become more compelling in recent years. Moreover, Little Rock is not suffering any shortage of housing. Emily Hagberg Sep 18, 2018 1 am opposed to the development, it will cause significant flooding issues in one of the cities busiest water thoroughfares in the city. The flooding will effect and become much worse in many neighborhoods such as Briarwood, Leawood, Wingate. I do not believe the city will have the funds to cover the widespread damage to private property owners. I'm certain the developer Icon Homes will not have a bond on file to cover all property damage caused to land owners. Turner Buie Sep 18, 2018 This development is totally unnecessary. It will eliminate precious green space. It will also cause significant traffic issues, especially with the traffic associated with the Brady Elementary School. There is to much traffic congestion in the area now. This development will only increase the traffic congestion. Kim McDade Sep 17, 2018 Keep it green! Allison Henry Sep 17, 2018 This is the exact opposite of what Little Rock needs. We need to keep the inner-city green spaces we have left to keep our beautiful city from becoming a desolate concrete jungle. Also, there is no way the proposed houses won't flood due to the watershed effect. It is an absurd proposition that has not at all been thought out. The increased congestion and danger at the entrance to Brady Elementary should be enough to stop this, but there are all of the aforementioned issues as well that make this a terrible idea. Please do not allow this area to be rezoned. Jan Patterson Demestre Sep 17, 2018 Please vote no on the housing development across from Brady Elementary. For all of the reasons listed in the above petition. Lucy Towbin Sep 17, 2018 Apache Road, Briarwood Leslie Loring Sep 17, 2018 Please do not approve the new development. Suzanne McAlister Sep 17, 2018 1 oppose the proposed development across from Brady Elementary School. Ginny N Wood Sep 17, 2018 Do not allow this development. Celeste Watson Sep 17, 2018 This green space is important to absorb water that is already causing flooding in the area. Janette Smith Sep 16, 2018 Such a bad idea. Go somewhere else!! Ileana Dobbins Sep 16, 2018 1 am against this development. Dana Renard Sep 16, 2018 We do not need another developed area right across from Brady elementsry. The traffic is already so bad. Mary Keyes Sep 16, 2018 1 oppose this measure as this development has zero benefits for neighborhoods & many sound reasons it shouldn't exist from causing even more flooding in the area, to safety concerns related to the school children as well as people who walk with or without dogs in neighborhood. Destroying the natural green space will reek havoc on the environment by increasing pollution, endangering the safety of animals and humans alike, and cause untold amounts of property damage. This will ruin the neighborhood I live in & love for no other reason than the greed of a developer. Please don't allow them to destroy my home!! Anonymous Sep 16, 2018 We do not want these houses to be built in this area Carol Mason Sep 16, 2018 That development will cause many problems for the leawood/ Wingate area. Traffic, loss of green space , school concerns such as safety issues, and flooding of existing residences are just a few. Mary C Scott Sep 16, 2018 Please keep our kids safety in mind. Travelling Markham between 720 and 8 am is already a horror. People in the left lane heading east and the west lanes drive too fast in the school zone. Traffic turning into Brady backs up to Rodney Parham and Mississippi in each respective direction. Added to that the rush hour traffic going down Markham. No more traffic is needs to be funneled onto Markham at the busiest time of the day Rhonda Sep 16, 2018 Please don't this. This city is losing its green space by th second with new development while large stores are closing left and right leaving abandoned real estate that will probably never be filled again..... Johnny Hall Sep 16, 2018 1 am a resident in the area an totally against the proposed housing project. Ruby tramel Sep 16, 2018 1 Felicia Russell Sep 15, 2018 Please think of the children in the area. Maria Guadalupe Chavarria Garcia Sep 15, 2018 Please do not allow this rezoning to happen. Paula A Turner Sep 15, 2018 1 oppose this development. Less is more. We do not do you need any more housing in this area. There are so many places up for sale tons of apartments are available and we need to keep some green space in our neighborhoods. Byron Taylor Sep 15, 2018 1 have video of the flooding from the last rain. Alice Estes Sep 15, 2018 Drainage is terrible in this low lying area of Little Rock, in all directions! To allow this new development would increase the drainage problems for all homeowners in this area! Kirby Shofner Sep 15, 2018 Enough is Enough! Green spaces are vital to all communities. This is completely unnecessary. Leave something for you grandchildren. Angela Norton Sep 15, 2018 This development project will bring devastation and discord to a lovely area of town. I see no benefit to citizens or the city. NO. NO. NO. LeighAnne Russell Sep 15, 2018 Between being across from Brady school & the ever growing traffic on Markham this doesn't sound like a wise decision. The drainage issues should also be seriously considered. Arnold Goodman Sep 15, 2018 1 oppose developing one of the last and largest green spaces remaining in the mid -town area. This proposed development will create significant drainage issues and safety problems for Brady Elementary students. Helen Goodman Sep 15, 2018 Please do not let this development happen. The detrimental effects of this project far outweigh any positive impacts for our community at large. The lack of consideration for environmental repercussions alone warrant denying the proposal. The further negative effects it could cause for schools, businesses and surrounding communities in terms of traffic, accessibility and quality of life lend additional weight to reasons to deny. Carolyn Sparks Sep 14, 2018 Adding more traffic so close to the elementary school could potentially put these kids in danger. Green areas are so critical to our environment for a lot of reasons. Please don't add another concrete subdivision . We need more trees not less. Nancy Hazelwood Sep 14, 2018 This will be a disaster. Karen Light Sep 14, 2018 Please do not allow this rezoning to happen. The city has too many drainage issues as it is. Jessica Crippe,n Sep 14, 2018 This development would be disastrous for the surrounding neighborhoods. The environmental impacts and the affect on home values alone should make this proposal a NO-GO. Richard Bassett Sep 14, 2018 We don't need to do anything to increase the traffic in that area and taking green space for asphalt is not good. Peggy and Gene Hartsell Sep 14, 2018 1 am totally against this development, first the Brady school is across the street which will be dangerous for the children, the traffic is awful on Markham, there are the apartments that try to get on Markham it those trying to turn left to get to their apartment, car wash has the same problem as do the vet clinic, than we have the condo's which turned into rentals they were going to be upper end but that didn't happen, there are times when the traffic is backed up to the school and further back Allen Klak Sep 14, 2018 Rodney Chandler was trying rezone property at 6400 west Markham from single home to six patio homes. The planning commission was sympathetic to this development, but Board of Directors voted 10 to 0 to stop that. Please ask for support neighborhood associations. Valerie Wingert Sep 14, 2018 1 am against this development as we MUST retain natural and green spaces in such a vulnerable place so flooding does not become worse in a city that does NOT have the infrastructure to support more paving and developing. Bob Hagberg Sep 14, 2018 Due to emergency vehicle access as well as traffic congestion concerns this is irresponsible development and should not take place. Nancy Sheehan Sep 14, 2018 Flooding is already an issue in this area. I am opposed to this development. Patricia Hillis Sep 14, 2018 With the traffic, safety and flooding concerns this project would be a catastrophe if allowed. Clair Ramsay Sep 14, 2018 No! Catherine Johnson Sep 14, 2018 NOAA projects a continued increase in flooding for this area - the trend has already begun. City engineers use data from 1998 (20 yrs old) when determining what measures developers must take to prevent flooding. This is INSUFFICIENT. We need to get real about this and get our heads out of the sand. Julie Johnson Holt Sep 14, 2018 This development seems environmentally problematic and would negatively effect several stable neighborhoods. The city should not allow a development that would add so much paved surface to this piece of land. Deletta Browning Sep 14, 2018 Markham Street from Rodney Parham to Mississippi already horrendous traffic congestion. The development will add additional traffic issues in front of Brady Elementary. I am vehemently opposed to destroying green space and endangering pedestrians and motorists. Anne Cockrill Sep 14, 2018 5422 Hawthorne Rd Little Rock, AR I have visited this nice "tucked away" oasis and it would be a shame to lose it. Kakki Ledyard Sep 14, 2018 I'm opposed . Julie Owens Sep 14, 2018 My daughter and I both have signed this petition and emailed the members and Dir Peck. Rebekah Hearne Sep 14, 2018 1 have email the board members and Capi Peck about our numerous concerns for this development. SIGNATURES Georgeann Street Tracy Crain Chris ,Kotoun Amanda Paige Bob Davis Karolyn Thompson Samantha Lawson Natali Stone Janice Lee Mike Wallace Natali S Stone Victoria Mosley Carol Wallace Elizabeth D Miller Renee Arehart Lauren Ramirez Martha Cunningham Jeffrey D Thatcher Mike Phelps Lolita Nurmamade Jessica kirkpatrick Jane Aston LaDonna Topich Brian Pruett Hope Meyers Erin Roy Mary k clark Homer E Hartsell James Rodgers Tamey Craig Charles Huitt Michelle Nichols Jon Holcomb Joseph Troll Karen D Herbert William Steele Marsha Winters Pam Powell Patricia Odonoghue Norman Brown Stephanie Harris Martha Gueringer Tanner R Garrett Janis McDermott Pam McDill Beth Werner Bob Davis Margaret Dunn Terra Swaim Cheryl Smith Christina Mayo Nicole Hobbs Janet Woodell Lisa King Rachael Veregge Robbye Flynn Randy Riggs Brenda Vocque Kathleen Evans Karen Skarda Michael Scott Jennifer Brown Bill King Ann Marshall Patrick Herrera Robert ammann Pam Anderson Dr Karen Kittler Hunter Mary Steele Nina Moler Kenneth Mayo Eva Riggs Shelle Stormoe Jo Nell Chastain Mary Middleton Britt Skarda Lindsey Clark Rhonda Bolls Janice ammann Lucy Towbin Andre poirot Josh Danforth Leslie Loring Carol Mason Melissa Allen Kirsten Machamer Martha Shinley Thomas Jones Racheal Carter -Ragan Kristin Stuart Sara Schaff hauser Samantha McGarrell Lucy Hagberg Jana jones Suzanne McAlister Mary C Scott Susan Eschenbrenner Griff Keyes Katherine Wyrick Jeanie Barron Kenan Keyes Rhonda Steven Barger Ginny N Wood Johnny Hall Gary Mullenax Tiffany Huitt Tom Clifton Frank McDonald Celeste Watson April Stasia McDonald Sarah Standridge Ruby tramel Kristen Hill Daren Wingard Kathryn Martin Tyler Hill Tammy Lamberson Lisa Kessler Leora Donna Hughes Janette Smith Felicia Russell Emily Hagberg Ileana Dobbins Cornelia rossi Turner Buie Dana Renard Byron Werner Stephen Lienhart Mary Keyes melanie meuse-warg Sarah Blossom Marile Adams Tanner McCoy Elaine Lienhart Mary -Julia Hill Melissa stuart Lynn Hailey Scott Hallmark Maria Guadalupe Sherry Harlston Lewis Prather Chavarria Garcia Kim McDade Amber Prather Lee beverly Allison Henry Chris Harkins Dean McMillin Jan Patterson Demestre Shada Roberts -Tanner Kaye Garrett Paula A Turner Athena Coleman Stephanie Hurst Stephen Hurst Byron Taylor Jennifer Ashmore Alice Estes Jessica Chandler Lauren Miller Kay Stebbins Deonna Whatley Julianne Naylor Kirby Shofner Angela Norton LeighAnne Russell Arnold Goodman Helen Goodman Allison Pace Karen Cron John Shelby Julia Baldridge Marsha Stone Matt Johnson Kristin Shelby Don Edwards Christopher Stewart Craig Cooney Roy Dudley Sharon Renick Justin Bulloch Carolyn Sparks Nancy Hazelwood Melissa Compton Lotasha Thomas Daniela Buhayevska John Wehmer Karen Light Mary Halbert Jessica Crippen Adam Davenport Molly Allen Lunt Dawn Danforth Richard Bassett Deirdre Metrailer Peggy and Gene Hartsell William Jones Cathy Coleman Allen Klak Valerie Wingert Bob Hagberg Karen Foster Maurine Gaston Nancy Sheehan Patricia Hillis Clair Ramsay Catherine Johnson Martin Cruce Laura Martha Wehner Lauren Carrigan Julie Johnson Holt Thoma Thacker Chris Wright Nick Eichelmann Teresa B Eichelmann Deletta Browning Angie Thompson Anne Cockrill Lynne Clifton Kakki Ledyard Wren Ward Julie Owens Rebekah Hearne Elizabeth Garland Carney, Dana From: Catherine Johnson <kafrum@comcast.net> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 12:06 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: For the Mergeron Court file Dana, Please add this letter RE: Mergeron Court to the official city file. Thank you! Catherine Johnson October 31, 2018 My name is Catherine Johnson and I live at 235 Markwood Drive, in the Kaylin Hills neighborhood, behind the Markham and Rodney Parham intersection. I am an administrator of the Kaylin-Wingate trust, a neighborhood trust formed to purchase and protect the green spaces that serve the very important purpose of slowing wastewater runoff in our unusual topography. I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Mergeron Court development, located in the 8000 block of Markham, across from Brady Elementary. I urge you not to approve this preliminary plat. The flooding and drainage issues in this area where the property is located are well -documented. City staff and private engineer consultants agree that approximately 450 acres drain into this basin and the creek that runs through it. Issues range from regular heavy creek overflow extending well into yards (including mine), to at least one instance of 2-foot high water in a carport resulting in the total loss of an automobile (April 30, 2017). The Corps of Engineers completed a floodplain study of the Fourche Creek Basin in October 1979. As a part of this study they developed detailed flood maps for several Little Rock creeks, including Fourche Creek, Rock Creek and Grassy Flats Creek. According to the Corps, although they analyzed the flow from this basin for it's contribution to Rock Creek flow, they did not develop the detailed flood map for the creek because the basin fell below the 1.5 square mile area threshold set for this work by Corps of Engineers policy. The flood maps developed by the Corps were later turned over to FEMA and are the basis for the current Little Rock flood maps. For this reason, it's important to note that although this area is not shown on the current FEMA flood maps, it is not because it's not subject to flooding. Public Works has not been able to supply any floodplain studies of this area. As far as we can determine, no floodplain maps have ever been developed for this area. Public Works has told us that the unusually heavy water flow is causing silt buildup at an accelerated rate, so the creek will need to be dredged at least yearly in order to maintain it. For reference, I've been told a normal dredging schedule would be every 3-4 years. The Kaylin-Wingate Trust has submitted a Capital Improvements Request asking for upgrades to the creek and drainage systems in this area due to these ongoing issues. The city has provided no plan for access to the creek for maintenance or capital improvements if this development is built. The homes will be just 5 feet apart, and the city has no easement on the adjacent lot. Public Works has told me that access via the apartment complex's property is extremely difficult and is strongly not preferred. My next door neighbor's yard is a lake whenever we get a heavier -than -average rain, and a year ago his yard flooded so badly that his large outdoor shed, with contents, located in the middle of his yard (NOT adjacent to the creek) floated completely across his yard and came to rest on my fence. The water flow was strong enough that I've no doubt if that fence had not been there, his shed would be on the far side of my yard right now. His property is adjacent to the creek and will be catty -corner to the proposed development, so is certain to be affected by this development. My property also experiences regular overflows from the creek and is separated from the development only by the creek and a very narrow wedge-shaped piece of land owned by BSR/Markham Oaks apartments. Based on the somewhat vague grading and drainage plan submitted by the developer, it appears the runoff from the development will be directed by pipe immediately into the creek, at a point directly adjacent to my property line. The developer insists that his property will not flood, which is probably true if he is allowed to direct significant runoff onto my property via the creek. To say I'm concerned about this would be an understatement. Mr. Chandler has indicated there will be a detention pond to help offset the increased runoff, but the grading and drainage plan provides no specifics, so there's no way to independently analyze his plans. It's not even clear whether there's sufficient space allowed to include a detention area large enough to adequately compensate for the paved and roofed areas. I want to be clear that I'm not opposed to responsible development of this lot, but I do not believe that paving over this green space to this extent is in any way responsible. The developer himself told neighbors the plan would decrease green space by 70%, yet he's not been required to submit an engineering analysis for flooding potential as specifically required at the preliminary stage by city ordinance Sec. 31-90(2), nor has he provided any specifics as to how he plans to compensate for the increased water flow due to loss of absorbent ground. The city has said that some studies will be required after the preliminary plat is approved, but neighbors have little recourse at that point, nor is it clear how much oversight the city will provide at this stage, or how stringently the requirements will be enforced. The developer has every financial motivation to do as little as possible in terms of conducting studies in order to identify potential problems and in addressing them properly. He will do only what he is told he has to do, and there's significant neighborhood concern that in the absence of Planning Commission oversight and public input, what will actually be accepted as sufficient will not be adequate to prevent problems. To illustrate this point, note that the developer submitted revised plans on October 30 (just 2 days before the Planning Commission hearing). This was done in response to a letter from the Kaylin-Wingate trust attorney advising the city that they had not held Mr. Chandler to all the requirements for a preliminary plat submission as laid out in city ordinances. The city found some of our claims to have merit, and requested that Mr. Chandler revise his plans to address the requirements previously omitted, as pointed out by neighbors. This is an instance of Mr. Chandler submitting inadequate plans and the city accepting them instead of holding him to the minimum legal requirements. A law that is not enforced may as well not exist, so assurances that there are laws the developer will "have to" adhere to do not ease my mind. This is exactly why I say I'm not confident either that the developer will do his due diligence, or that the city will provide adequate oversight, which is particularly important in this case given the already -existing issues and unusual topography of this vulnerable area. Public Works has already told me they will NOT require a floodplain analysis if this plat is approved, despite ordinances that indicate one should be required. Aside from drainage issues, it should further be noted that Brady Elementary School is directly across the street from this lot and already has significant traffic and safety issues, particularly during drop-off and pick-up times, when Markham becomes, essentially, a two lane street. There have been two traffic accidents there just in the last month, at least one of which was directly in front of the entrance to the property in question. I do not personally have any children at the school, but I know for a fact that parents and teachers are deeply concerned. Sight distance is an issue for left turns on the property in question, but limiting it to right turns only will only create a situation where more cars are turning around illegally at Brady, which already has a significant problem with wrong -way traffic in its one-way drives. Lastly, I am opposed to the private drive. Due to the unusual topography and long history of drainage problems, it's important that the City of Little Rock have a stake in the development of this lot and how it's executed, and it's important for neighbors to have some recourse with the city should future flooding/drainage or other issues present themselves. According to city ordinance Sec. 31-207 (a), "Private streets for residential development shall be discouraged," and have to be approved by the Planning Commission. Regards, Catherine Johnson 235 Markwood Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 501-563-1845 cell Carney, Dana From: Ebony Smith <ebonywestsmith23@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 1:35 PM To: Carney, Dana; caberry1955@gmail.com; ladybeejay@gmail.com; keith.cox@bxs.com; sdanh1@gmail.com; mhaynes@21cjs.com; lahaengrls@sbcglobal.net; platture@yahoo.com; bmay37@sbcglobal.net; robertbstebbins@att.net; ArkRealEstate@aol.com; becky@beckyfinney.com Subject: SKM_C36818103110230.pdf Good afternoon, I am Ebony Smith, the PTA president for Brady Elementary. The PTA and staff would like to submit this letter along with the signatures of concered staff and parents as an official file against the proposed development, directly across from Brady Elementary at 7915 West Markham Street. Thank you for your time and help with this important matter October 22, 2018 To Whom It May Concern; I am President of Brady Elementary PTA. I along with other parents, staff members and neighbors are very concerned about the development that is planned to be built across from Brady Elementary. This development will create several major problems for the school, staff and student safety. As you know the traffic is already a noted problem. There are four traffic lanes in front of the school. The traffic flows ex1remely fast on most days and times. The lanes are very close, which does not allow for mistakes which create a major safety issue. We know that there are students who live in the apartments across from the school, who walk on the sidewalk and would have to cross the entrance to the proposed sub division. This creates a major concern}, because it is adding another level for the children to try to manage and watch the traffic on Markham as well as traffic entering and exiting the subdivision. Also, in addition to the other concerns listed the entrance and exit to the subdivision being directly across frown the entrance to the school, will create further congestions and possible accidents. It is noted that parents already make illegal turns into the school to avoid driving around the block to make the correct entrance into the school. We want to add, there has been several accidents in front of the school due to the flow of traffic and people not being cautious in a school zone. As you can see these are legitimate safety concerns for the students, staff, and parents. The PTA and staff want to formally submit this letter along with a signed list of concerned individuals in strong protest against the building of the subdivision across from Brady Elementary at 7915 W. Markham. Please support us by placing the students, staff and parents safety a top priority. Thanks in advance for your consideration and support. Sincerely, �, U_� (bony �nit, ,,P? ident Brady Elementary PTA Signatures of parents, staff, and community members against the development across f'r-)tn Brady Elementary •� r 3. 29. 4. • I�I• `I 30. 5. � i 31. f 6. - T 32. - 7. 33. - 8. _ 34. 9. 35 10. 36. 37. > 12. x t 39. E ,I i3. r i 39. i'• `.. 15. 41.i% r 16. - 42. , .. 43. 18. 44. s - 19. .' 45. 20. S 46. 21. - 47. 22. �z F r,]] 48. 23. i 49. 24. i 7 50. 25. 51. 26. �� m srr&Zt.> - ^3Y �_ d f,�...,. 52. Signatures of parents, staff, and community members against the development across from Brady Elementary 27� f . 3. J 4. ;5u. A24 6. 32. S. V 'fie,- Ali 36. 37. 'XI tr\ ol 12 38. n 39 'z 40. r 11 15. 41. 42. -'1 17, 43. 18. 44. 45. 20. 46. 47. 22. 48. 23. 49. 24. 50. 2s 51. _26.X 51 Carney, Dana From: Rebekah Hearne <rhearne1 @sbcglobal.net> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 3:26 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Fw: Great concern about proposed planning development for Midtown area on Markham across from Brady Elementary On Wednesday, September 12, 2018 9:15 PM, Rebekah Hearne <rhearne1@sbcglobal.net> wrote: We are writing today with great concern about the proposed development on Markham across from Brady Elementary in between the neighborhoods of Kaylin Hills and Wingate. We live in Kaylin Hills. Our concerns are many to include the dangers of loosing valuable green space in a documented flooded area with a creek which overflows and often floods the yards and homes of our residents in both neighborhoods. The dangers of noise & air pollution by the loss of this valuable natural green space poses great losses to the long standing members of these communities. The urban wildlife would also be at great risk if we lose this precious green space. The green space that we are losing along the Briarwood neighborhood by the 1630 project is detrimental enough, but to lose this space that many animals have retreated to would be an eminence loss to the environment of the area as a whole. The increased traffic problems of a known area with backed up traffic from both Rodney Parham and Mississippi streets along Markham in both directions are of great concern. This traffic is also currently over taxed by the project at 1630 with even more traffic backs us in these locations due to overflow. This increased traffic at the only proposed entrance to this development is directly across the entrance to Brady Elementary school and this increases the dangers to those children & parents walking and driving to and from the school twice a day. The proposed area for this development is documented as being prone to flooding and drainage issues. This area is shaped like a big bowl, and the property in question is at the bottom of it. A topographical map shows that water from 450 acres (from Cantrell Road south to Markham Street) drains into the creek adjacent to this property between Kaylin Hills and Wingate. When the creek is high due to excess rain, properties all along it already experience flooding which is a known issue for many of the homes in the Leawood neighborhood as well along the creeks as well . Saturday September 8th's rain filled the creek to overflowing and it was moving dangerously fast. The creek is already at capacity, and this green space is absolutely vital to absorbing rainfall and slowing the water flow into the creek. We live at the top of Nob Hill in this neighborhood and yet we too experience extreme amounts of dangerously fast moving water coming from Leawood (our back yard) through our property, flooding our yard and on occasion our home, tearing through the side of our home downward along the side walk and steep driveway and into our over taxed drains and then flooding the streets. This flooding continues both to the right of the street flooding down to Rodney Parham and also to the left of the property down the hill into the streets and flooding the creek towards Markham. ( I have video evidence of Saturday's rain, which was not at flash flood levels of this happening along with a downstairs that was affected previously by flooding) This proposed development would be at the bottom of the hill and further downwards directly in the waters path and below that is Brady Elementary. The flooding losses could be detrimental to both residents and the school should we lose this essential green space to slow the progress of the water. The developer says his development will pave over 70% of this green space, and that the remaining 30% of green space may have few to no trees. The developer has not done any hydro -logical studies. Other concerns: -The 13-house development is to be built on a very small lot and these will be zero lot line houses, which means they will be built right up to the property lines, separated by just 5 feet. (Visualize 5 feet - that's very tight.) -The drive will be privately owned. This means the city will have no jurisdiction over any issues or damage (including flooding) to neighboring properties that occur as a result of this development. -This lot is currently a rich green space, filled with trees and wildlife which will be destroyed and displaced by this unnecessary development. It is, in fact, the last green space of its size left in Midtown. -This development will increase air pollution, both through the removal of trees, which help keep the air clean, and by the increased cars and habitation in their place. -It will increase noise pollution by removing an important sound buffer for residents of neighboring areas. Here is a map from google of the area in question. Here is the link for use ilti s://www.goo le.com/ma sl €ace/Brad +Elements +School! 34.7535449.- 92.363626 282mldata=!3rr1 !1 e3!4m5!3m4! 1 sOxO:Oxa72ce31351712509!8m2!3d34.7523873!4d- 92.3631656 Note the heavy green space across from the school's entrance would be the proposed entrance to this development and it would clear away all of the green space behind it. Here is a street view of the "entrance" of the proposed development Goo le Maps 0 Google Maps Find local businesses, v:etr mars and gel, diving directuonsin voogle IAaps. We long standing residents of this neighborhood live here because of the quiet green tree lined environment and have chosen this area for those reasons. We have been in our home over 15 yrs and many residents in our area up to 30 plus years. This proposed development would be detrimental to us all for the many reasons I have listed. Please do not allow this development to clear away this last remaining green space in Midtown and pose such potential hazardous environmental issues to our area. Rebekah Hearne Nob Hill Cove Julie Owens Nob Hill Cove Carney, Dana From: Amber <amber.mooney@att.net> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 3:32 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Fw: Opposition to planned development - Markham & Rodney Parham On Wednesday, September 19, 2018 10:34 AM, Amber <amber.mooney@att.net> wrote: Dear Planning Commission Members: We are strongly opposed to the development of the green space located on Markham across from Brady Elementary. Respectfully yours, Amber and Lewis Prather 58 Wingate Drive Little Rock, AR 72205 Carney, Dana From: Elizabeth Garland <gandegarland@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2018 10:58 AM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Proposed Mergeron development Mr. Carney and City of Little Rock, I am writing to oppose the proposed development of Mergeron Court. This area already has significant flooding issues and the proposed addition of a new street with twelve homes will only exacerbate the existing issues. The developer has told neighbors that his intent is to cover 70% of this property with concrete or homes. There are currently 4 neighborhoods that suffer flooding from the creek, as it is. There are many homes for sale and rent in the immediate area surrounding this proposed development, indicating there is not a need for additional homes. Putting twelve homes on a lot of 2.15 acres is not good planning. It will destroy a green space and it will hurt home values of the homes that back up to and surround this area. This area acts as a buffer for noise and car pollution in the existing neighborhoods that surround this tract of land. The neighborhoods surrounding this area have existed for 40 to 60 plus years. Considering the community support, as demonstrated by the online petition containing 243 signatures as of today, I am asking you to please vote NO to the proposal. Thank you for your time and consideration, Elizabeth Henry Garland, 23 Wingate Drive Sent from my iPad Carney, Dana From: Peggy Hartsell <pohartsell@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2018 1:12 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Fwd: Development Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Peggy Hartsell <pohartsellQsbc log bal.net> Date: October 30, 2018 at 1:07:52 PM CDT To: dcarney r Iittlerock.govp Subject: Development I have email each of the Planning Commissioners asking that they vote NO on the proposed Development across from Brady Elementary School, the only way out of that development will be directly in front of the entrance of the school. As you know if you travel Markham anytime of the day the traffic is awful, I leave for work between 6:15 and 6:30 and making a left off Markwood is almost impossible as is turning left on Rodney Parham off Nob Hill Cove. Then there is the issue of flooding, when it is raining the water flows down Nob Hill Cove into the creek as does it from up above from Cantrell, and that creek floods, the Wingate neighborhood is at a low point, The same problem still existed each time this goes to the planning Commission Thank You Peggy Hartsell Nob Hill Cove Sent from my iPhone Carney, Dana From: Patricia Hillis<patricia@precision printsolutions.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2018 12:30 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Mergeron development off Markham Importance: High Dear Mr. Carney, I am extremely concerned about the proposed Mergeron development that borders Wingate and Kaylin neighborhoods. My property borders the ditch/creek and this development would, without a doubt, cause extreme flooding and property damage to the houses at the bottom of the "bowl". This includes my house. I just bought this house and moved in in January 2017 and my yard, as well as my adjoining neighbors, has severely flooded already since I moved in. I cannot afford to have my house flood, as I feel it surely will if this developer is allowed to build this unsuited project and pave over a good part of the land. I ask you respectfully to not allow this to go forward. Thank you, Patricia Hillis Precision Print Solutions 6200 Murray Street Little Rock, AR 72209 501-687-2222, ext.111 501-687-2223 fax 501-681-7568 cell Carney, Dana From: Davenport, Adam <Adam.Davenport@icf.com> Sent: Thursday, November 1, 2018 8:40 AM To: Carney, Dana Cc: jessicacrippen@gmail.com Subject: Mergeron Development Good morning, I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Mergeron development behind my home at 43 Wingate Dr. I believe that it is a truly irresponsible project on the developer's part, as squeezing a large number of homes into such a small space will only negatively impact the surrounding neighborhoods. The flooding issues already present, high traffic on Markham across from Brady Elementary, as well as the definite reduction in property values, all point to this development as being nothing more than a money -grab on the developers part. Previous homes he has built to minimum standards never sold and were turned into rental units. Please consider the larger negative impact this would have on the surrounding community as a whole when making your decision. Thank you. ADAM DAVENPORT I Research Assistant 1 +1.501.435.3004 direct I Adam. Davenport(0)icf.com I icf.com ICF 1 425 West Capitol Ave, Suite 3180, Little Rock, AR 72201 USA Learn how ICF makes big things possible for its clients. The Cortinez Law Firm Attorneys at Law 11521 West Markham Street Office: (501) 372-6000 Robert R. Cortinez, Ir Little Rock, AR 72211 Facsimile: (501) 375-7669 corrinczlnw6r)hotmnii.conl Mailing Address: P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 October 23, 2018 Little Rock Planning Commission Attn: Janie Collins - Director icollitis r litlleroc€c, Dana Carney r..)Gcmjui 'i Minlerock.goy Re: Mergeron Court Proposed Preliminary Plat Developer: Rodney Chandler Engineer: McGetrick Engineers Dear Sirs: of counsel Bob Cortinez, Sr. f ohcortilie-z1101rrlaii.00r11 Little Rock City Attorney's Office Attn: Shaun Overton Assistant City Attorney St}ys:1�i ittlerock.gov I represent the Kaylin Hills -Wingate Trust which property borders the northern end of the proposed Mergeron Court Development. Our property also encompasses the Sheraton Ditch -Creek waterway. I also represent the Kaylin Hills and Wingate residents whose lots border the northwest and eastern boundary lines of the proposed Mergeron Court Development. Please allow this letter to serve as formal notice of non-compliance issues by the proposed subdivision/plat for Mergeron Court as it pertains to Subdivision Ordinance Sec. 31-86 et seq (Preliminary Plat Procedure) and Sec. 29-61 et seq (Storm Water Management and Drainage Plans) The proposed platting and subdivision plans filed with the Planning Commission fail to address the following requirements as required by ordinances for subdivision approval. The represented parties have utilized an engineering review as it pertains to the concerns described below. Sec. 31-88. - Vicillity neap. "The drawing shall generally locate arterial streets, highways, section lines, railroads, schools, parks and other significant community facilities; and, if possible, shall be incorporated on the preliminary plat." * No vicinity map was submitted identifying arterial streets or schools. Brady Elementary is located directly across Markham from the proposed development entrance and is omitted from said plans. Brady Elementary already operates under several "no -left turn" restrictions due to heavy traffic flow and safety concerns on Markham Street. Objections to the Mergeron development will be addressed as it affects Brady due to traffic and safety concerns. Sec. 31-89. Preliminary plat. "The preliminary plat shall be identified by the name of the subdivision, and shall include all information listed below: Sec. 31-89(1) "Contours shown at intervals of not more than five (5) feet for terrain with an average slope exceeding ten (10) percent or more, and at an interval of two (2) feet for terrain with slopes less than ten (10) percent. The source of the contours along with the source from which all elevations were derived shall be clearly described." * No source of contours is provided on plat plan. Sec. 31-89(4) "Natural features within and immediately surrounding proposed subdivision including drainage channels, bodies of water, wooded areas and other significant features. On all watercourses leaving the tract, the direction of flow shall be indicated, and for all watercourses entering the tract, the drainage area above the point of entry shall be noted." * No drawings indicating drainage channels, watercourses, flow direction or drainage area above point of entry for Sheraton Ditch -Creek. Sec. 31-89(5) "The storm drainage analysis showing drainage data for all watercourses entering and leaving the plat boundaries. The storm drainage analysis shall be prepared in sufficient detail to illustrate the proposed system's capability of accommodating storm events as required by chapter 29, Stormwater Management and Drainage, and the Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual." * There has been no storm drainage analysis submitted. Furthermore there is insufficient detail on the preliminary grading plan to adequately prepare an analysis that will met the requirements outlined in the City Stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. Sec. 31-89(8) "Cultural features within and immediately surrounding the proposed subdivision including existing and platted streets, bridges, culverts, utility lines, pipelines, power transmission lines, all easements, park areas, structures, city and county lines, section lines and other significant information." * No designation of bridges, culverts, or drain lines within property and immediately surrounding property. Sec. 31-89(9) "Preliminary storm drainage plan incorporating proposed easement dimensions and typical ditch sections. " * There has been no storm drainage plan submitted to date. The preliminary grading plan as submitted in not sufficient to determine the minor and major drainage easements for any non -paved areas including building roof and yards in accordance with 29-126 and 29- 127. Without this information it is not possible to perform a stormwater analysis per stormwater Management and Drainage Manual. Sec. 31-89(13) "For both residential and commercial subdivisions, names of all owners of landlocked parcels contiguous to or within the plat boundaries." * No names or lot markers on plat, only reference to Wingate #37 and Kaylin # 5 & 6. The submitted preliminary plat application contains no reference or attempted compliance with the above cited ordinances. In addition, the preliminary plat approval process requires engineering analysis: Sec. 31-90 r--neineering Analysis R uirement Sec. 31-90(2) "Where a portion of a plat is suspected to be floodprone, and that area is not covered by the flood insurance study prepared by the federal insurance administration for the national flood insurance program, or is not covered by available U.S. Army Corps of Engineers information, an engineering analysis shall be submitted. The analysis shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat filing. The public works department shall be provided with copies for review and approval prior to submission of staff analysis to the planning commission. Such analysis shall be prepared by the engineer of record at owner's expense. The analysis shall determine to the best of the engineer's ability a safe building line, and it shall be clearly and legibly drawn on the preliminary plat." Sec. 31-90(3) "Soils tests may be required by the planning commission where it is suspected that soil conditions may affect structural or operational aspects of the facilities to be constructed. Such circumstances may include the stability of slopes, foundation conditions and potential hazards created by deep cuts and fills required for street or utility construction and similar situations." * No engineering analysis submitted even though suspected flood prone plats require an engineering analysis for flooding potential as part of the preliminary plat filing. No engineering analysis submitted to date and developer is aware of flooding in this acreage. In addition to the above, sight line issues exist for this development as follows: Sec. 32-8. - Obstructions to visibility at intersections. Sec. 32-8(c) "Embankments, retaining walls and other obstructions within the area described in subsection (a) of this section that obstruct the view so as to endanger life or property are a traffic safety hazard and shall be removed at the direction of the public works department." Sec. 32-8(d) "No obstruction to cross -visibility shall be deemed to be excepted from the application of this section because of its being in existence at the time of the adoption hereof." Sec. 31-206. - Intersections and alignment. Sec. 31-206(g) "Where visibility at any proposed street intersection would be impeded by earthen berms or existing vegetation, the developer shall cut such ground and vegetation in conjunction with the grading of the street right-of-way sufficient to provide adequate site distance as specified in section 32-8." Sec. 31-206(h) "Street intersections shall be located to avoid creating hazardous driving conditions." * The development cannot comply with the moving of earthen berms at the entryway due to privately owned property at the intersection. Sec. 31-94. - Approval procedure. Sec. 31-94(b) "The staff and other appropriate city and public agency staff shall review the proposed subdivision for conformance with this chapter. In its review, staff shall take into consideration the requirements of the community and the use of the land being subdivided and may offer suggestions concerning changes they feel would enable the project to meet the purpose and intent of this chapter. Particular attention shall be given to width, arrangement and location of streets; utility easements; drainage; lot sizes and arrangements; and other facilities such as parks, playgrounds or school sites, public buildings, parking areas and arterial streets; and the relationship of the proposed subdivision to adjoining, existing, proposed and possible subdivision of lands." * Per ordinance language, existing neighborhood relationship and community requirements, are to be considered with particular attention to streets, drainage, lot sizes and schools. 4 During preliminary discussions with city staff, there have been references to the "Richardson" case as controlling dicta. The "RichardsoW' case dealt with a vague and unarticulated plan denial by the Planning Commission on a subdivision case from twenty years ago. The Supreme Court stated that the Planning Commission's denial was not based on an articulated ordinance as required by law. In contrast, these compliance failures by the Mergeron development plan are directly related to specific, cited, city ordinances and as such is completely distinguishable from a "Richardson" case analysis. This proposed subdivision creates significant drainage issues, negatively impacts the established neighborhoods of Wingate, Kaylin Hills and Briarwood "as existing and adjoining owners" and creates traffic and safety concerns for Brady Elementary School. On behalf of these parties, the neighborhood association and the residents identified herein, we would respectfully request that our opposition and objection be noted to the Mergeron Court plat plan. cc: Kaylin Hills Wingate Trust Wingate P.O.A. Briarwood P.O.A. Kaylin Hills -Wingate Residents 5 Sincerely, Robert R. Cortinez, II v ni. aro m D m c r r+ rr m O A n O O Q Z al 10 Gr ;• m N 7Q m O n O v 5' a� vo m 03 a) T. r r+ rr M ;a O A T_ O O a M Z a) V ..- S r - n�x• g' . g . N a N 'Alt, r r cx r rr rr m m O A n m 0 O CL 3 a) 10 ;� cD N as c� O O c r r+ v a� W 5' a r r+ r+ (D M O A -n O O a M a� Z a� .O N {A s 3 a� 0 0 N a) N 4-1 two .x aJ W s H El ■ m 0 0 —I p D D =r rD rD N rD -S `G r+ � O - O rD p O rD rD 3 �_ N rD 3 — rD rD W rDrD �. a� (DD UQ rDrD ,{ N =:, 3 rD rN-r N O � 3 N mrD O r+ rD rD fD N_ v'• W m r o O_ N rt �. � � U cu OJ v v 7 > >o � L Q CD m Q E 4— CA 0 m L Qi N +r 0 4- 0 E o v - W L u ® pit u .ypy� �7\ W mry �1 Yi P. 2 C7 ~ Z w — 0 O N O Z J LL O w 0 1= w Q U c a ac � Z N O w Q O 7 = ~ O w L w Z � � Q O Z J O w _l � = Z Q �- Q Carney, Dana From: Overton, Shawn Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 11:27 AM To: Collins, Gilbert; Honeywell, Jon Cc: Betton, Alex; Wisdom, Debbie; Hood, Mike; Carney, Dana Subject: 60CV-18-8041-31343239.pdf Mergeron Court Development Kaylin Hills v. Rodney Chandler Attachments: 60CV-18-8041-31343239.pdf All, Here is the Court Order for the Kaylin Hills matter. At this time the Developer will have to do an Engineering Analysis and go back through Planning Commission. Thanks. Shawn A. Overton Deputy City Attorney City of Little Rock Office: (501) 371-4717 e-mail: soverton@littlerock.gov ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Terri Hollingsworth, Circuit/County Clerk 2019-Apr-09 11:14:58 60CV-18-8041 C06D05 : 8 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, 5`h DIVISION KAYLIN HILLS WINGATE TRUST WINGATE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION and CATHERINE JOHNSON PETITIONERS V. 60CV-18-8041 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION and RODNEY CHANDLER d/b/a ICON HOMES, LLC RESPONDENTS MEMORANDUM ORDER The parties appeared on March 15, 2019 for a hearing on the instant petition for injunctive relief and judicial review arising from a November 1, 2018 decision by Little Rock Planning Commission to approve a preliminary plat submission for a planned residential development to be known as Mergeron Court. Robert Cortinez II appeared for Petitioners. Marie Crawford appeared for separate respondent Rodney Chandler d/b/a ICON Homes, LLC. Shawn Overton appeared for separate respondent City of LR Planning and Zoning Commission. Hearing witnesses were sworn, the rule regarding witnesses was invoked, and witnesses were admonished as to the rule. The Court denied the motion of separate defendant Rodney Chandler to be dismissed, and granted the oral motion by petitioners to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof and substitute separate defendant ICON Homes, LLC for Rodney Chandler. The Court also denied the motion of separate defendant ICON Homes, LLC to dismiss the petition for judicial review and injunctive relief on the part of Kaylin Hills Wingate Trust, Wingate Neighborhood Association, and Catherine Johnson for lack of standing. Testimony was received from the following witnesses for Petitiioners: Catherine Johnson; Byron Taylor; Lee Beverly; and Michael Hood. Testimony was received for separate Respondent ICON Homes, LLC from Patrick McGetrick. The Court also received the certified transcript of the November 1, 2018 meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission (Joint Exhibit 1), the certified minute records from that meeting (City of Little Rock Exhibit 1), Little Rock Ordinance Sec. 31-90 (Petitioners Exhibit 1), a DVD containing the video of the November 1, 2018 meeting (Petitioners Exhibit 2), a video introduced through the testimony of Catherine Johnson showing flooding (Petitioners Exhibit 3), photos of Sheridan Creek which was also referred to by witnesses as a ditch (Petitioners Exhibit 4), the preliminary plat for Mergeron Court (Petitioners Exhibit 5), a survey map of the land on which Mergeron Court would be constructed by Thomas Engineering (Petitioners Exhibit 6), a PowerPoint presentation by witness Lee Beverly (Petitioners Exhibit 7), and the narrative report by Lee Beverly (Petitioners Exhibit 8). Pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties agreed to advance the trial on the merits and consider the merits on the record of the hearing for preliminary injunction. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. On November 1, 2018, Separate Respondent Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary subdivision plat submission from Separate Respondent ICON Homes, LLC for a planned residential development known as Mergeron Court. The subdivision plat envisioned a development of twelve (12) houses on zero lot lines, a private drive and traffic circle, a detention pond, and other associated construction on approximately two (2) acres of land situated between the Wingate and Kaylin Hills neigborhoods in west Little Rock. 2. Petitioners are residents of Pulaski County who are adjacent and/or adjoining property owners in the Wingate and Kaylin Hills neighborhoods. 3. When the Mergeron Court subdivision preliminary plat was submitted, Little Rock Ordinance 31-90 read as follows: Sec. 31-90 Engineering Analysis Requirement (2) Where a portion of a plat is suspected to be flood -prone, and that area is not covered by the flood insurance study prepared by the federal insurance administration for the national flood insurance program, or is not covered by available U.S. Army Corps of Engineers information, an engineering analysis shall be submitted. The analysis shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat filing. The public works department shall be provided with copies for review and approval prior to submission of staff analysis to the planning commission. Such analysis shall be prepared by the engineer of record at owner's expense. The analysis shall determine to the best of the engineer's ability safe building line, and it shall be clearly and legibly drawn on the preliminary plat. 4. The Mergeron Court subdivision preliminary plat was not submitted with an engineering analysis as prescribed by Little Rock Ordinance Sec. 31-90(2). 5. The area where the Mergeron Court subdivision would be constructed is suspected to be flood -prone, and is not covered by the flood insurance study prepared by the federal insurance administration for the national flood insurance program, or is not covered by available U.S. Army Corps of Engineers information. The public works department of the City of Little Rock was aware of these facts when the Mergeron Court subdivision preliminary plat was submitted. 6. During the November 1, 2018 meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission, Catherine Johnson, Byron Taylor, Lee Beverly, and Michael Hood acknowledged that the area of the Mergeron Court planned development is suspected to be flood -prone. 7. Petitioners have demonstrated that they are in imminent risk of irreparable harm if the Mergeron Court residential development is constructed without the engineering analysis prescribed by Little Rock Ordinance Sec. 31-90(2). 8. Petitioners have demonstrated a likely probability of succeeding on the merits. 9. Petitioners have no other adequate remedy aside from injunctive relief. 10. The November 1, 2018 decision by the Little Rock Planning Commission to approve the Mergeron Court subdivision preliminary plat occurred despite knowledge by the Commission, Commission staff, and public works department of the City of Little Rock that no engineering analysis was submitted by separate Respondent ICON Homes, LLC in compliance with Little Rock Ordinance Sec. 31-90(2). DISCUSSION Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-15-212(h) of the Administrative Procedure Act provides the following framework for judicial review of the decision by the Little Rock Planning Commission concerning this land use dispute. (h) The court may affirm the decision of the agency or remand the case for further proceedings. It may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the agency's statutory authority; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Affected by other error or law; 4 (S) Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or (6) Arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. The evidence in this matter is clear and convincing. The Little Rock Planning Commission acted in violation of Little Rock Ordinance Sec. 31-90(2) when it approved the Mergeron Court subdivision preliminary plat submission. The Public Works Department of the City of Little Rock acted in violation of Sec. 31-90(2) when it accepted the Mergeron Court preliminary plat submission without the engineering analysis mandated by the ordinance. The staff of the Planning Commisson recommended that the Commission approve the Mergeron Court preliminary plat submission despite knowledge that preliminary plat submission did not include the engineering analysis. All of these things occurred despite full knowledge by the Public Works Department, Planning Commission staff, and Planning Commission members that "a portion of [the Mergeron Court ] plat is suspected to be flood prone..." and that none of the other information required by Sec. 31-90(2) was available. During the November 1, 2018 meeting of the Planning Commission, Michael Hood made the following statement to the Commission concerning the propensities of Sheridan Ditch, a waterway that borders the northwest portion of the Mergeron Court preliminary plat submission: What about this Sheridan Ditch here, or creek, or whatever you'd like to call it? When the first flood studies were done when they did the Rock Creek channelization — probably a lot of you remember that when some of those early studies were done — the Corps of Engineers made it's [sic] decision based on certain criteria — the area of the drainage ways — that they would not go map every little tributary going up through this area. And it was a decision that was made then as a matter of policy as much as anything that not every little tributary would have a FEMA — mapped flood plain. Now, that doesn't mean that some areas may not still experience occasional flooding, but nonetheless, it's a policy matter that not everything was mapped. And, certainly, we're all mindful that there is a history of flooding there. There's no doubt. You can go to city records and see there's been calls over the years about yard flooding, fences knocked down. It has been a nuisance to those residents, there's no doubt. It's a creek. See Joint Exhibit 1, p. 48, lines 4 thru 24, emphasis added. Hood admitted when questioned by the Court during the March 15, 2019 hearing that the area of the Mergeron Court plat is suspected to be flood prone. Although Patrick McGetrick (a civil engineer engaged by Respondent ICON Homes, LLC concerning the Mergeron Court submission) testified during the March 15 hearing that the subject property is not flood prone, he later testified "I have no idea if the property along the creek is flood prone or not," testified that Sheridan Ditch floods "on both sides," and that no engineering analysis was done for flooding purposes. The evidence is clear and convincing that the area adjacent to and which includes part of the Mergeron Court proposed development is "suspected to be flood prone" within the meaning of Section 31-90(2). There is no credible evidence otherwise. Meanwhile, the preliminary plat for the Mergeron Court development depicts an eighteen -inch (18") reinforced concrete type exchange from a catchment basin at the northwest comer of the plat that would empty into Sheridan Ditch. Thus, surface water from the development would be discharged into a tributary that Hood (civil engineering manager for the Little Rock public works department) acknowledged has been known as a cause of flooding "over the years." This proof, coupled with the testimony of area residents about recurring flooding of their property from the Sheridan Ditch/Creek, demonstrates that the petitioners will suffer irreparable harm unless respondents are enjoined from proceeding with the Mergeron Court development without compliance with Ordinance 31-90(2). The evidence is abundantly clear that the November 1, 2018 decision by the Little Rock Planning Commission was taken in known violation of Ordinance 31-90(2). As the Arkansas Supreme Court has declared, "it has become axiomatic that an agency is bound by its own regulations." Stewart v. Arkansas Slate Police, 329 Ark. 46, 945 S.W.2d 377 (1977)). The argument by Respondents that an engineering analysis will occur at some later point in time violates the plain wording of Sec. 31-90(2). The Ordinance requires an engineering analysis before a preliminary plat is submitted to the Planning Commission. The Ordinance requires that Planning Commission staff consider the engineering analysis before submitting a preliminary plat to the Commission for action. Section 31-90(2) plainly states that the engineering analysis "shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat filing, the public works department shall be provided with copies for review and approval prior to submission of staff analysis to the planning commission..." The Little Rock Planning Commission did not follow the ordinance that governs its procedure. There is no rational basis for that violation. Petitioners are threatened by irreparable harm because of the violation. The proof concerning this matter is clear and convincing. CONCLUSION The November 1, 2018 decision by the Little Rock Planning Commission to approve the Mergeron Court preliminary plat submission was made upon unlawful procedure (A.C.A. § 25- 15-212 (h)(3), is not supported by substantial evidence of record (A.C.A. § 25-15-212 (h)(5), and is arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion (A.C.A. § 25-15-212(h)(6). Accordingly, the decision cannot stand. The Petition for injunctive relief is GRANTED. The November 1, 2018 Little Rock Planning Commission decision is REVERSED and REMANDED for further action consistent with this decision. 7 ORDERED April <xN Nt)t$__V[tV.V_'C I R:_� u PATRICIA5_0 N z P, 'V of GM) �3 L CJ LF] I EILI: 13 00 XE�D WING�A o RED-OAK-L-N A! R2 I. KAYL!D U3, OR L 1> 0 0 0 c, L O PD-O LC3 n Un C 1) ... = . a Lj_ AMHERST CUP OR Jf 03.. MF18 R5 63 c3 CUP ED � VIA KHAM ST- .......... PD-R C3 R2 L CUP, L. R4 rr R2 :13 0 CUP o C3 0 �WARWOO[ .... Ice, THIS SITE DR— CUP :,n, 3 C3 R2 I.1 2E3_j Ca �j R:D a D Ij M U1. CE E? 0 Q7 ci �2, L 2 ir < D 0 > K �3 PRD F­U kPACHERD— _R2 cl CUP, R2 _APITOL-d 'R CUP, D I Vicinity Map Area Zoning City of Little Rock Planning & Development �1 I <" / Rev. 9/25/2018 Case: S-1827 Location: 8000 Block of West Markham Ward: 4 PD: 3 CT 21.04 TRS.- T1 N R1 3W 2 N A 0 200 400 2001=�� Feet Sketch City of Little Rock Planning &Development Case No: S-1827 Title: Preliminary Plat Name: Mergeron Court N Location: 8000 Block of West Markham A I ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Nov-21 15:28:23 60CV-18-8041 C06D05 : 4 Pages IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANS KAYLIN HILLS WINGATE TRUST; PLAINTIFFS WINGATE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; and CATHERINE JOHNSON VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION DEFENDANTS and RODNEY CHANDLER d/b/a ICON HOMES, LLC PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW COMES now, the Petitioners, by and through their attorney, Robert R. Cortinez II, and their Petition for Relief states as follows: That this Petition is brought under the authority of A.C.A.§25-15-212 from a final decision by Defendant Little Rock Planning Commission concerning an approval for a preliminary plat proposal for "Mergeron Court", by and through Separate Defendant, Rodney Chandler d/b/a Icon Homes, LLC. 2. That Plaintiffs are residents of Pulaski County and are adjacent and/or adjoining property owners to the "Mergeron Courts" preliminary plat's proposed boundaries. 3. That venue and jurisdiction are proper before this Court. 4. That on November 1, 2018, Defendant Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary subdivision plat submission for Mergeron Court by Separate Defendant, Rodney Chandler, d/b/a Icon Homes, LLC. The subdivision consists of twelve houses on zero lot lines; a private drive and circle; a detention pond and other construction on just two acres of land between two established neighborhoods, Wingate and Kaylin Hills. (See Attached Exhibit 1. File No. S-1827). 5. That the approval for the subdivision plat was improper, illegal and not supported by existing City Ordinances and have violated the rights of the Petitioners as codified in A.C.A. §25-15-212(h) in one or more of the following particulars. as being; A. In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; B. In excess of the agency's statutory authority; C. Made upon unlawful procedures; D. Affected by other evidence or law; E. Not supported by substantial evidence of record; or F. Arbitrary capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 6. Among other actions in violation of above, the city staff and Planning Commission failed to consider appropriate flooding and draining concerns; failed to consider noted safety concerns of the neighborhood and an adjacent elementary school; failed to consider noted traffic hazards for the development; failed to consider noted sight line issues for the development's entrance and exit; and failed to consider neighborhood community concerns, all in violation of the City Ordinances for preliminary plat approval under Sec. 31-86 thru 92 et seq (Preliminary Plat) and Sec. 29-61 et seq. (Storm Water Management). 7. In addition, and more specifically, the Defendants failed to follow and abide by its own engineering analysis requirement as codified in Little Rock Code of Ordinances "Sec. 31- 9(].(2)_Engineerinl; Analysis which requires as follows: Sec. 31-94 Engineering Analysis Requirement 2 Sec. 31-90(2) "Where a portion of a plat is suspected to be floodprone, and that area is not covered by the flood insurance study prepared by the federal insurance administration for the national flood insurance program, or is not covered by available U.S. Army Corps of Engineers information, an engineering analysis shalt l)e su1)niitted. The analysis shall he subin itted as part of the preliminary plat filing. The public works department shall be provided with copies for review and approval prior to submission of staff analysis to the planning commission. Such analysis shall he prepared by the engineer of record at owner's expense. The analysis shall determine to the best of the engineer's ability a safe building line, and it shall be clearly and legibly drawn on the preliminary plat." (Emphasis Added). 8. The City Defendant's engineer admitted that the subdivision plat area was subject to flooding and numerous neighborhood associations and landowners presented testimony, pictures and video of the flooded properties adjacent and adjoining the subdivision plat area. 9. Despite this evidence and the strict "shall" requirement under Ordinance 31-902, the Commission approved the development without the necessary, required engineering analysis in "ultra viries" of established legal requirements. 10. The proposed subdivision plat area is bound by two distinct neighborhoods, Kaylin Hills and Wingate and numerous homes and property which are affected by flooding issues in this subdivision plat area, which also contains a small creek, rendering the entire area "flood prone". Irreparable harm will result to the property if the Defendant, Icon Homes LLC., as developer, is allowed to proceed without the required engineering analysis to determine if the development of a twelve house plat with a private street, and privately maintained utility services can be supported in a flood prone area on less than two acres of land. The grading and clearing of the two acres prior to an engineering analysis creates a substantial risk of flooding to neighboring properties that represents an irreparable harm if the land is cleared and graded for development purposes under the current subdivision plat plan. 11. Petitioners request that the Court immediately enjoin any further development of the Mergeron Court plat subdivision until such time as the legally required engineering analysis can be performed and a hearing scheduled to determine violations of City Ordinances on the merits as presented to the Defendant Little Rock Planning Commission by Defendant, Icon Homes LLC. WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the Court reverse and/or modify the Defendants approval for the Mergeron Court Subdivision plat; for an immediate injunction halting any and all work, construction, clearing or grading of the subdivision plat; for costs and fees; and for all other just and proper relief as determined and by the Court. Prepared by: Robert-R-- -ortinez II, Ark Bar No. 91117 The Law Office of Robert R. Cortinez, II P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 (501) 372-6000 C t) I'Ll lICZLI W(41,,tlOtnlill I.COIiI 4 Carney, Dana From: Robert Cortinez Tracy Page <cortinezlaw@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 2:28 PM To: Carney, Dana; Overton, Shawn; rodchandler43@aol.com Subject: Mergeron Court Development Attachments: 20181121142521.pdf Please see attached Thanks Tracy Page Legal Assistant The Law Offices of Robert R. Cortinez, II P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 501-372-6000 501-375-7669 (Fax) CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED This Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this Email is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone 501-372-6000 or by e-mailing the sender, and destroy any copies, electronic, paper or otherwise, which you may have of this communication. The Cortinez Law Firm Attorneys at Law _ 11521 West Markham Street Office: (501) 372-6000 Robert R. Cortinez, 11 Little Rock, AR 72211 Facsimile: (501) 375-7669 cortistexl;nv(t*ltounail.com Mailing Address: P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 November 21, 2018 Dana Carney DcarneyLOl ittlerock.gov Shaun Overton Soverton tilittferock. gov Rodney Chandler d/b/a Icon Homes, LLC. 1 Fairhills Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 rodchandler0@4gol.com Re: Mergeron Court Development Dear Sirs: of counsel Bob Cortinez, Sr. bobcorti ner.(ii:lsatmaiIxom I advised Mr. Overton on November 20, 2018 that adjacent property owners, and neighborhood associations, intend to appeal the Little Rock Planning & Zoning Commissions approval of the preliminary plat for Mergeron Court. The property owners are seeking injunctive relief to prevent any construction on the subdivision until a hearing on the merits. As such, I am requesting a copy of any and all written declarations evidencing the Board's vote and approval of Mergeron Court from the November 1, 2018 meeting. I requested this paperwork from Mr. Overton and he advised that Mr. Carney would have the paperwork. I am also requesting a copy of the entire record, including video, from the meeting. In addition, this letter will confirm that the City Board of Directors has no oversight or appeal options for this project due to the project being submitted without a variance. As such, all administrative remedies have been exhausted and there are no other administrative remedies available for interested parties other than an appeal to Circuit Court under A.C.A. 25-15-212. If the Board of Directors has reviewing authority of this project, please consider this letter as an appeal for review to the Board of Directors, and notify my office immediately. Among other things and with all due respect, it is the property owner's position that the Commission and staff acted in "ultra viries" for its willful failure to follow its own city ordinances. Little Rock City Ordinance Sec 31-90(2), mandates that an engineering analysis "shall' be submitted prior to plat approval if a plat portion is "suspected" to be flood prone. The Commision and staff were presented with video, and testimony of significant flooding to the subdivision plat area. City of Little Rock engineers admitted at the Commission hearing that the plat was in an area that had flooded and failed to answer a Commissioners direct question as to whether an engineering analysis had been done. The answer is "No", and said analysis is required under the Ordinance for "suspected" flood prone areas. cc: Kaylin Hills Wingate Trust Wingate P.O.A. Kaylin Hills -Wingate Residents 2 Sincerely, koI56 t R. Cortinez, II Carney, Dana From: Robert Cortinez Tracy Page <cortinezlaw@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 4:25 PM To: Carney, Dana; Overton, Shawn; rodchandler43@aol.com Subject: Petition Attachments: 20181121162254.pdf Please see attached Thanks Tracy Page Legal Assistant The Law Offices of Robert R. Cortinez, II P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 501-372-6000 501-375-7669 (Fax) CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED This Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this Email is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone 501-372-6000 or by e-mailing the sender, and destroy any copies, electronic, paper or otherwise, which you may have of this communication. The Cortinez Law Firm Attorneys at Law 11521 West Markham Street Office: (501) 372-6000 Robert R. Cortinez, II Little Rock, AR 72211 Facsimile: (501) 375-7669 cortinezlnwfoliotmail.eom Mailing Address: P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 November 21, 2018 Dana Carney DearneyLa littlerock.goer Shaun Overton Soverton0littleroek. =ov Rodney Chandler d/b/a Icon Homes, LLC. 1 Fairhills Circle Little Rock, AR 72205 rodcllandler4 ftol.com Re: Mergeron Court Development Dear Sirs: of counsel Bob Cortinez, Sr. babcorn incz(d,Iiommi I.com I am attaching a file -marked copy of the Petition for Injunctive Relief and Judicial Review filed on today's date. It is my understanding that Mr. Overton will accept service on behalf of the City and I am in the process of serving Mr. Chandler. However, I am advising and putting all parties on notice that I will be contacting Judge Griffen's office to schedule a short hearing for preliminary injunctive relief next week. Sincerely, R015_6rt R. Cortinez, II cc: Kaylin Hills Wingate Trust Wingate P.O.A. Kaylin Hills -Wingate Residents ELECTRONICALLY FILED Pulaski County Circuit Court Larry Crane, Circuit/County Clerk 2018-Nov-21 15:28:23 60CV-18-8041 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS C06D05 : 4 Pages KAYLIN HILLS WINGATE TRUST; PLAINTIFFS WINGATE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; and CATHERINE JOHNSON VS. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION DEFENDANTS and RODNEY CHANDLER d/b/a ICON HOMES, LLC PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW COMES now, the Petitioners, by and through their attorney, Robert R. Cortinez II, and their Petition for Relief states as follows: That this Petition is brought under the authority of A.C.A.§25-15-212 from a final decision by Defendant Little Rock Planning Commission concerning an approval for a preliminary plat proposal for "Mergeron Court", by and through Separate Defendant, Rodney Chandler d/b/a Icon Homes, LLC. That Plaintiffs are residents of Pulaski County and are adjacent and/or adjoining property owners to the "Mergeron Courts" preliminary plat's proposed boundaries. 3. That venue and jurisdiction are proper before this Court. 4. That on November 1, 2018, Defendant Little Rock Planning Commission approved a preliminary subdivision plat submission for Mergeron Court by Separate Defendant, Rodney Chandler, d/b/a Icon Homes, LLC. The subdivision consists of twelve houses on zero lot lines; a private drive and circle; a detention pond and other construction on just two acres of land between two established neighborhoods, Wingate and Kaylin Hills. (See Attached Exhibit 1. File No. S-1827). 5. That the approval for the subdivision plat was improper, illegal and not supported by existing City Ordinances and have violated the rights of the Petitioners as codified in A.C.A. §25-15-212(h) in one or more of the following particulars. as being; A. In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; B. In excess of the agency's statutory authority; C. Made upon unlawful procedures; D. Affected by other evidence or law; E. Not supported by substantial evidence of record, or F. Arbitrary capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion. 6. Among other actions in violation of above, the city staff and Planning Commission failed to consider appropriate flooding and draining concerns; failed to consider noted safety concerns of the neighborhood and an adjacent elementary school; failed to consider noted traffic hazards for the development; failed to consider noted sight line issues for the development's entrance and exit; and failed to consider neighborhood community concerns, all in violation of the City Ordinances for preliminary plat approval under Sec. 31-86 thru 92 et seq (Preliminary Plat) and Sec. 29-61 et seq. (Storm Water Management). 7. In addition, and more specifically, the Defendants failed to follow and abide by its own engineering analysis requirement as codified in Little Rock Code of Ordinances "Sec. 3 1- 90 2 kin ginecriii Q Anal ysis which requires as follows: Sec. 31-t1U 1:rt itscrrin AFtal�sis ltec ttireittetti 2 Sec. 31-90(2) "Where a portion of a plat is suspected to be floodprone, and that area is not covered by the flood insurance study prepared by the federal insurance administration for the national flood insurance program, or is not covered by available U.S. Army Corps of Engineers information, an engineering analysis Ir ll be submitted. The analysis shall be submitted as part of the preliminary plat filing. The public works department shall be provided with copies for review and approval prior to submission of staff analysis to the planning commission. Such analysis shall be prepared by the engineer of record at owner's expense. The analysis shall determine to the best of the engineer's ability a safe building line, and it shall be clearly and legibly drawn on the preliminary plat." (Emphasis Added). 8. The City Defendant's engineer admitted that the subdivision plat area was subject to flooding and numerous neighborhood associations and landowners presented testimony, pictures and video of the flooded properties adjacent and adjoining the subdivision plat area. 9. Despite this evidence and the strict "shall" requirement under Ordinance 31-902, the Commission approved the development without the necessary, required engineering analysis in "ultra viries" of established legal requirements. 10. The proposed subdivision plat area is bound by two distinct neighborhoods, Kaylin Hills and Wingate and numerous homes and property which are affected by flooding issues in this subdivision plat area, which also contains a small creek, rendering the entire area "flood prone". Irreparable harm will result to the property if the Defendant, Icon Homes LLC., as developer, is allowed to proceed without the required engineering analysis to determine if the development of a twelve house plat with a private street, and privately maintained utility services can be supported in a flood prone area on less than two acres of land. The grading and clearing of the two acres prior to an engineering analysis creates a substantial risk of flooding to neighboring properties that represents an irreparable harm if the land is cleared and graded for development purposes under the current subdivision plat plan. 11. Petitioners request that the Court immediately enjoin any further development of the Mergeron Court plat subdivision until such time as the legally required engineering analysis can be performed and a hearing scheduled to determine violations of City Ordinances on the merits as presented to the Defendant Little Rock Planning Commission by Defendant, Icon Homes LLC. WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that the Court reverse and/or modify the Defendants approval for the Mergeron Court Subdivision plat; for an immediate injunction halting any and all work, construction, clearing or grading of the subdivision plat; for costs and fees; and for all other just and proper relief as determined and by the Court. Prepared by: 'cz. _ Robert-R-,-Coi1inea. II, Ark Bar No. 91117 The Law Office of Robert R. Cortinez, II P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 (501) 372-6000 Corti ne ltiw(t1flottl1jzil.coin 4 Carney, Dana From: Overton, Shawn Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 8:39 AM To: Carney, Dana Cc: Hood, Mike; Floriani, Vince Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Sure, You also need to provide to Public Works including Mike Hood since Mike is the one that spoke in regards to the Engineering Analysis and drainage. Mike, A lawsuit has been filed in regards to the Mergeron Application. I will need you to testify at the Temporary Injunction Hearing. Thanks. The hearing date has not been set. From: Carney, Dana Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 8:31 AM To: Overton, Shawn <soverton@littlerock.gov> Cc: Collins, Gilbert <gcoIIins@little rock.gov> Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Do you want a copy of whatever we send to Mr. Cortinez? From: Overton, Shawn Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 7:43 AM To: Carney, Dana <DCarnev@littlerock.eov> Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Dana, That is not necessary. Just send what you got. He is filing a restraining order against us. From: Carney, Dana Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 7:33 AM To: Overton, Shawn <soverton @fittlerock. ov>; Collins, Gilbert <gco€tins@littlerock.gov> Subject: FW: Mergeron Court Development Do you want the materials requested in the attachment to go through the City Attorney's office for delivery to Mr. Cortinez? From: Robert Cortinez Tracy Page [mailto:cortinezlaw@hotmail.comj Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 2:28 PM To: Carney, Dana <DCarnev@littlerock.gov>; Overton, Shawn <soverton@littlerock.gov>; rodchandler43@aol.com Subject: Mergeron Court Development Please see attached Thanks Tracy Page Legal Assistant The Law Offices of Robert R. Cortinez, II P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 501-372-6000 501-375-7669 (Fax) CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED This Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this Email is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone 501-372-6000 or by e-mailing the sender, and destroy any copies, electronic, paper or otherwise, which you may have of this communication. Carney, Dana From: Collins, Gilbert Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 10:44 AM To: Overton, Shawn; Carney, Dana Cc: Carpenter, Tom; Honeywell, Jon; Hood, Mike Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development If nothing has been filed, I can bring the copies to our meeting Monday for your review and release. Jamie From: Overton, Shawn Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 10:35 AM To: Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov>; Carney, Dana <DCarney@little rock.gov> Cc: Carpenter, Tom <TCarpenter@littlerock.gov>; Honeywell, Jon <J Honeywell@ littlerock.gov>; Hood, Mike <Mhood@little rock.gov> Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Jamie, The lawsuit has not been filed nor served, but if your more comfortable with me sending it, that's fine. We just need to get the information to him because this is more along the lines of a freedom of information request than a discovery request. Has Public Works been informed? It was Public Works that made the decision that an Engineering Analysis was not needed. They need to be made aware of all that is transpiring. Let's get the information to the person, and I don't care if it's me or someone else. I do believe we are all having a meeting in regards to this issue on Monday. Thanks. From: Collins, Gilbert Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 10:25 AM To: Carney, Dana <DCarnev@littlerock.gov>; Overton, Shawn <soverton littlerock.gov> Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Shawn, Once a lawsuit is filed, we send all documentation to the City Attorney's office in order to review before submission. Two copies will be placed today in interoffice mail to your attention. Please review and send to Mr. Cortinez. Jamie From: Carney, Dana Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 8:31 AM To: Overton, Shawn <soverton@littlerock.gov> Cc: Collins, Gilbert <gcoIIins@littlerock.goy> Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Do you want a copy of whatever we send to Mr. Cortinez? From: Overton, Shawn Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 7:43 AM To: Carney, Dana <DCarney@Iittlerock.Rov> Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Dana, That is not necessary. Just send what you got. He is filing a restraining order against us. From: Carney, Dana Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 7:33 AM To: Overton, Shawn <soverton@iittlerock.gov>; Collins, Gilbert <Pcoliins@littlerock.gov> Subject: FW: Mergeron Court Development Do you want the materials requested in the attachment to go through the City Attorney's office for delivery to Mr. Cortinez? From: Robert Cortinez Tracy Page f mailto:cortinezlaw@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2018 2:28 PM To: Carney, Dana <DC_arney@iittlerock.gov>; Overton, Shawn <soverton@littlerock.Pov>; rodchandler43@aol.com Subject: Mergeron Court Development Please see attached Thanks Tracy Page Legal Assistant The Law Offices of Robert R. Cortinez, II P.O. Box 217 Little Rock, AR 72203 501-372-6000 501-375-7669 (Fax) CONFIDENTIAL & PRIVILEGED This Email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The information contained in this Email is intended only for use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone 501-372-6000 or by e-mailing the sender, and destroy any copies, electronic, paper or otherwise, which you may have of this communication. Carney, Dana From: Overton, Shawn Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 11:08 AM To: Carpenter, Tom; Carney, Dana; Collins, Gilbert Cc: Honeywell, Jon; Hood, Mike Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Tom, Thank you, Sir. From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Friday, November 23, 2018 11:06 AM To: Carney, Dana <DCarney@littlerock.gov>; Overton, Shawn <soverton@littlerock.gov>; Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov> Cc: Honeywell, Jon <1Honeywell@littlerock.gov>; Hood, Mike <Mhood @littlerock.gov> Subject: RE: Mergeron Court Development Dear Group, Shawn and I talked. At first blush, I would have no problem making that assertion if the City Manager is agreeable. However, we do not bind the BOD on something of this nature. So, to be safe, I think that an injunction should be in place from a court, not from an internal City decision. This is not to say how I feel about the issue; it is merely to note that the BOD can override any such decision, so the injunction should be obtained. When it is filed, we can speak with the City Manager about whether to agree to the injunction or oppose it. Once it is in place, however, only the Court can set it aside (which, incidentally, may be pursuant to some time frame the parties agree upon).\ Tom Thomas M. Carpenter OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 500 West Markham, Ste. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-6875 (0) (501) 371-4675 (F) (501) 993-1052 (M) tcarpe nter@ I ittierock.eon Carney, Dana From: Overton, Shawn Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 8:44 AM To: Hood, Mike; Honeywell, Jon; Collins, Gilbert; Carney, Dana; Floriani, Vince Cc: Carpenter, Tom; Betton, Alex; Wisdom, Debbie Subject: FW: Petition For Injunctive Relief and For Judicial Review Icon Homes, LLC Attachments: 3814_001.pdf Mike, The City of Little Rock was served with the above attached Petition for Injunctive Relief on November 30, 2018. 1 have been assigned this case, and I need to file a response. I will need an affidavit from you that outlines the reasons the City of Little Rock determined that an Engineering Analysis not be required as part of the Preliminary Plat Application. I know that we discussed the reasons in a meeting, but I will now need to list those reasons in an Affidavit from you, which I will attach to the Answer. The City has thirty days to respond, but I hope to get the Answer and Affidavit filed sometime this week. You can just e-mail me the reasons, and I will prepare the Affidavit. Thanks. From: City of LR Attorney <CATCANON@littlerock.gov> Sent: Monday, December 3, 2018 8:31 AM To: Overton, Shawn <soverton@littlerock.gov> Subject: Petition For Injunctive Relief and For Judicial Review Icon Homes, LLC �)e,*-'Ne, 3 v ",/ z&V"r- IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS KAYLIN HILLS WINGATE TRUST; WINGATE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION; and CATHERINE JOHNSON VS. CASE NO.: 60CV-18-8041 CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION and RODNEY CHANDLER d/b/a ICON HOMES, LLC SUMMONS THE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO DEFENDANT: CITY OF LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS A lawsuit has been filed against you. The relief demanded is stated in the attached complaint. Within 30 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are incarcerated in any jail, penitentiary, or other correctional facility in Arkansas — you must file with the clerk of this court a written answer to the complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must also be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address are: R ke t R. Cortinex II P.Q. Box 217 Little Rocks AR 72203 If you fail to respond within the applicable time period, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Address of Clerk's Office CLERK OF COURT (Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk] Date: [SEAL] No. 60CV 18-8041 This summons is for City of Little Rock Planiiiii�'cri���eiissitirl PROOF OF SERVICE ❑ I personally delivered the summons and complaint to the individual at --- ------ - - __[pla.ce] on _ - -- [date]; or ❑ I left the summons and complaint in the proximity of the individual by after he/she refused to receive it when I offered it to him/her; or ❑ I left the summons and complaint at the individual's dwelling house or usual place of abode at [address] with _ _[name], a person at least 14 years of age who resides there, on _ _ [date]; or ❑ I delivered the summons and complaint to _ _[name of individual], an agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of summons on behalf of of defendant] on ___ ___ I date]; or ❑ 1 am the plaintiff or an attorney of record for the plaintiff in this lawsuit, and I served the summons and complaint on the defendant by certified mail, return receipt requested, restricted delivery, as shown by the attached signed return receipt. ❑ I am the plaintiff or an attorney of record for the plaintiff in this lawsuit, and I mailed a copy of the summons and complaint by first-class mail to the defendant together with two copies of a notice and acknowledgment and received the attached notice and acknowledgment form within twenty days after the date of mailing. ❑ Other [specify]: ❑ I was unable to execute service because: My fee is $