The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5114 RESOLUTION NO. 5,114 A RESOLUTION OF INTENT TO REZONE CERTAIN PROPERTY, REFERRED TO AS THE RIVERDALE PROPERTY, WITHIN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS. Section 1. Attached herewith are two memorandums with supporting information which will be referred to as Exhibit 1. Section 2. Exhibit 1 describes the conditions under which a restructuring of the existing zoning patterns on subject property (zoning Case File Z-2106-A) may be accomplished; retaining the maximum development potential of the site at a level consistent with the existing development potential; and thereby protecting the public interest in subject property. Section 3. It is the intention of the Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock to rezone subject property by ordinance after submission and approval of a development plan and preliminary subdivision plat as set forth in Exhibit 1. Section 4. This resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption. ADOPTED: December 18, 1973 ATTEST: ;)∎021J APPROVED: lt/ City Cler Mayor EXHIBIT 1, RESOLUTION NO. M E M O R A N D U M TO: Members Little Rock Planning Commission FROM: Don R. Venhaus, Director, Community Development RE: Riverdale DATE: Dece:aber 6, 1973 The staff originally recommended deferral of this application to provide additional time for traffic analysis. After extensive discussion between the staff, the applicants' engineers and a representative from the State's Traffic Planning Department we are persuaded that as much data as can be reasonably applied to the issue is now available. No useful purpose would be served by extending the matter an additional thirty days unless some new considerations develop. In brief, traffic analysis demonstrates that Cantrell Road will be overwhelmed by the full development of -the subject site. Even fifty percent of the proposed development will reduce the level of service on Cantrell to a serious degree. However, this consideration would apply equally to the site as presently zoned. It seems a. fair conclusion that street facilities serving 4 the subject site must be improved to relieve the inevitable congestion which will occur on Cantrell and to realize the maximum development potential of the subject site. When this application was originally filed the staff outlined • several assumption relative to the issues. It was assumed that the public had made a commitment to property in 1967 by rezoning the site and the re-structur- ing of that zoning in a more usable form was appropriate. Although this • obligation is recognized, no public responsibility requires that the existing zoning and development potential be broadened, expanded or intensified. It was assumed that the primary issues relating to the application were traffic and circulation rather than zoning and development relationships. The property is already zoned for intensive use and is separated from residential areas by railroad right-of-way, Cantrell and commercial and industrial zoning and develop- ment. However, due to the critical traffic relationships and the broad public interest in the development, the staff urged that a development plan and sub- division platting be used to limit and restrain the development potential. Pursuant to these assumptions the staff recommends the following: 1) That the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Directors the adoption of a resolution of intent to rezone, such zoning to be adopted by ordinance following the submittal and approval of a development plan and preliminary subdivision plat. 2) A schedule of floor area ratios, proposed use areas by acres and maximum residential units is attached to this memo. This development format is proposed for incorporation in the proposed regulations of intent to rezone. Assuming adoption, the format would provide maximum limitations for all classes • • TO: Members Little Rock Planning Commission Page Two of development on the site and would be incorporated in the development plan and the Bill of Assurance of the subdivision plats. 3) It is recommended that the Bill of Assurance be utilized in the subdivision platting process to restrict the development and use of land in accordance with the land use approved in connection with the development plan. 4) This recommendation agrees to the restructuring of the exist- ing zoning on the subject site. It maintains the maximum development potential of the site at a level consistent with the development plan adopted in 1967. More importantly, it maintains the potential volume of traffic at the same relative level implied by the approved 1967 development plan. • • • • • RIVERDATE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT DENSITY December 6, 1973 Net Useable Apt. Units/ Residential "D" (86 Acres) Acres Density Floor Area Medium Rise Apartments 20.0 35/acre 700 Garden Style Apt./Condominiums 46. 2 24/acre 1,109 66. 2 1,809 ' Industrial "I" (169 Acres) Commercial 5.0 22% 48,000 Sq.ft. Office Medium Rise Office Park 40.0 33% 575,000 Warehousing/Industrial 83, 6 40% 1,457,000 TOTAL 128. 6 37.1% 2,080,000 1.* w • , M E M O R A N D U M December 6, 1973 TO: Don R. Venhaus, Director, Community Development • FROM: R. D. Bailey, Traffic Director SUBJECT: Proposed Riverdale Property Development Traffic Generation and impact Listed below are average daily trips generated for each type of proposed land use requested by Riverdale Property in an amended re-zoning ( land use) application. The trips generated per use were submitted by Garver & Garver and verified by the Transportation Planning Section of the State Highway Department. Trip genera- tion figures are based on information obtained from "The Highway Research Board Reference #121" and "Urban Trip Generation Studies" conducted by the Virginia Department of Highways in cooperation with U. S. Department of Transportation. Estimates are based on the best available data with the exception that warehouse space which is used for mixed use rather than warehouse storage, in my opinion, should be assigned a factor of four trips per thousand square feet, rather than one. Basis of Traffic Generation Apartments 7.5 trips per unit • Commercial 45 trips per 1 ,000 square feet Office 10 trips per 1 ,000 square feet Warehouse I trip per 1 ,000 square feet Trips ( 1973 Proposed Use) Apartments 1809 x 7.5 trips per unit = 13,568 Commercial 100,000 x 45 trips per 1 ,000/sq.ft.= 4,500 Office 864,000 x 10 trips per 1 ,000/sq.ft.= 8,640 Warehouse 1 ,094,000 x I trip per 1 ,000/sq.ft.= 1 ,094 Total 27,802 13,900 each way Don R. Venhaus December 6, 1973 Page 2 Applying the above trip generation factors results in an average daily traffic count generated by this site of approximately 30,000 vehicles. By recognizing that not all of the 30,000 trips will originate from outside the tract only tends to offset any errors made in assuming traffic generation factors which, in my opinion, are generally lower than actual trip generations. In an effort to identify the impact that this average daily traffic generation will have on Cantrell Road, we have extrapolated A.M. and P.M. peak-hour trips (from above-mentioned reference material ) and have estimated an average peak hour percent- . of trip generation per land use type. I ' These are as follows: Land Use Aver. Peak-Hour % Aver. Daily Trips Aver. Peak-Hour Trips Apartments 12% 13,570 = 1 ,628 Commercial 12% 4,500 = 540 Office 24% 8,650 = 2,076 Warehouse • 40% 1 , 100 = 440 Total 27,820 Total 4,684/2 = 2,342 The impact of a peak-hour increase of approximately 2,300 vehicles per hour on Cantrell Road would be disastrous. Cantrell Road cannot accommodate 1/4 of these trips and continue to operate at an acceptable level of service. As you are aware, Cantrell Road at peak hour in this area is currently operating at or near capacity. In conclusion, it is obvious that Cantrell Road cannot accommodate this amount of addi- tional estimated traffic. Analysis of the Mid-Town Freeway (From S.H. 10 to River Front Expressway) The earliest traffic plan of which I have any knowledge., is the Lochner Transportation • Plan for Greater Little Rock, developed in 1948, which identified among other major corridors (and facilities) a river front expressway. The 1967 Pulaski Area Transporta- tion Study (PATS) further identified and assigned traffic volumes to the River Front Expressway and Mid-Town Freeway in this area. The 1990 average daily traffic volumes assigned to the Mid-Town Freeway in .this vicinity was 54,600 trips per day, taking into account that the area now proposed for intensive development was at that time shown and assumed in the Transportation model to be open space. The additional assignment of 30,000 vehicles per day generated by this development alone certainly adds credi- bility to the PATS Plan identification of a major transportation corridor in this area. Dori R. Venhaus December 6, 1973 Page 3 Conclusion In conclusion, based on the above trip generation information for the Riverdale property, it is obvious in order to provide adequate transportation facilities for this proposed development will require a four-lane, median-divided, high-type faci- lity with adequate interchange and terminal treatment. Further, it can be con- cluded from the PATS Plan that a minimum six-lane high-type facility will be necessary to accommodate the existing 1990 projections and, without question, any future traffic assignment in this corridor. Recommendation It is my recommendation that a high-type, median-divided, four-lane expressway-type • facility with partially limited access be required at this time, with a west ter- minal at Reservoir Road and an east terminal providing access to Cantrell Road and a Second-Third Street (or other) connection with the reservation at this time of sufficient right-of-way to provide for a future six-lane high-type facility. In making the above recommendation, I fully understand that it is extremely diffi- cult to deal with zoning issues by requiring major off-site improvements such as mentioned above. I further recognize the extreme physical and financial problems which would be encountered by such a proposal . It is my opinion that Cantrell Road cannot provide even limited access for the proposed development. Therefore, a parallel facility must be provided. I feel that it is in the best interest of the City of Little Rock and the developer that they be made aware of the estimated traffic generation and serious access problems relative to the very dense development of this property. If you need additional information, so advise. ter:'") 1 / • 1 R. •R. D. Bailey cc: John L. Taylor Greg Simmons • • RIVERDALE PROPERTY TRAFFIC GENERATORS 1967 Zoning Apartments 2,000 units @ 7.5 trips/unit 15,000 trips Commercial 154,000 sq.ft. @ 45 trips/1000 s. f. 6,930 Office 50,000 sq.ft. @ 10 trips/1000 s. f. 500 Industrial/ Warehouse 1,184,000 sq.ft. @ 1 trip/ 1000 s.f. 1,184 23;614 trips . 1973 Zoning Apartments 1,809 units @ 7. 5 trips/unit 13, 568 trips Commercial 48,000 sq.ft. @ 45 trips/1000s.f. 2,160 Office 575,000 sq.ft. @ 10 trips/1000s.f. 5,750 Industrial/ Warehouse 1,457,000 sq.ft. @ 1 trip/ 1000s.f. 1,457 22,935 • •