HomeMy WebLinkAboutNov 17 2004 notice responsesARF. A 7.nivylvr-y
Case: LU05-20-02
Location: T TO MOC
Ward: 5
PD: 1
CT: 42.05
TRS: T2NR13W19
0 150300 600 Feet I
December 1, 2004
RE: LU04-19-03
Walter Malone
723 West Markham St
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
DEC 0 2 2004
BY- .
Dear Sir,
The Westbury neighborhood association met last night in regards to a couple of zoning
items. I understand that there are a few parcels, of land that may be up for re -zoning. The
areas that I am specifically concerned with are as follows:
from"TransitV6 'fo Mized Office-&Conunercial
These areas will directly effect the traffic at the entrance and the quality of our
neighborhood. There are 75 homes in the We subdivision and we only have a
single entrance/exit. It is already very difficult, if not dangerous to enter and exit the
neighborhood and the addition of commercial lots would only complicate our situation.
I understand that development will happen down the Cantrell corridor, butI hope that
development happened responsibly. I do not oppose the change from Transition to an
Office use, but I do oppose any change from a Transition use to a Commercial use. I also
believe that the land use plan that is in place should stay as it is.
incerely,
Mark Littrell
14315 Westbury Dr
Little Rock, AR 72223
DATE: November 26, 2004
TO: Charles Bloom
Planner
City of Little Rock/Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Herbert R. Byrd
700 Pine Valley Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
M E M O R A N D U M
This is in response to your recent notification to us of your
plans to review the land use plan and zoning for our property
in the 19900 block of Highway -10; parcel # 53L-015.00-018.02.
This property is currently zoned C-3 and we have listed it for
sale through a real estate broker. We have no objection to
the City of Little Rock changing the land use plan from park/open
space to commercial
11-z6.d�t
Ae Lrb e:r t R. B y r (date)
PS: You may wish to change your records to reflect the correct
spelling of our name; riot Boyd, but Byrd.
C,hAnSe 5-
H. R. BYRD - 700 PINE VALLEY RD -
many of us will make in our lifetimes, the rules are being changed on us, in violation of
what was set out by the city in the past.
Tract #25, Tract 3426
Tract 425 is immediately opposite of our neighborhood. Tract #26 is just across Pinnacle
Valley and the creek and from Tract #25. The proposal is to change these tracts from
Transition to MOC (Mixed Office Commercial). It is already very difficult for us to get
onto Highway 10. To make these changes will make it virtually impossible for us to turn
left out of our neighborhood.
To change these tracts will create a continuous commercial node from the bank east of
Sonic to the Walgreens, west of Taylor Loop Road. This will create a very large
commercial node around our neighborhood. We believe that this will in substance lead to
a violation of Section 3 6-3 01 of the Little Rock Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance which
provides:
It is the intent of these regulations that the C-3 District be concentrated at
the intersection of arterial streets. Extension of this district along major
arterial streets in linear fashion shall be discouraged.
Allowing the land use of these tracts to be changed from transition to some form of
commercial development will place the city in the position of having to defend creation
of a large linear strip of commercial development along a major arterial street. Placing
the city and our neighborhood in that situation will not be beneficial to either the city:or
our neighborhood.
Tract #27
Tract #27 lies in between Cantrell Road and the eastern part of our neighborhood. There
is approximately 50' feet of park/open space between our neighborhood and the tract in
front of it. This 50' of open space contains 3 large water mains. I very seriously doubt
that Central Arkansas Water would allow any trees be planted in this area to provide a
buffer between our neighborhood and any developments in front of it. It is not
appropriate to place a commercial development adjacent to our neighborhood across 50
feet of open ground.
We believe that office developments that are compatible with the quality of life in our
residential neighborhood would be more appropriate. Therefore, we respectfully request
that you reconsider and withdraw the proposal to change these tracts from transition to
commercial and mixed office commercial.
Sincerely,
Nathan C. Cu
Attorney aw
President of Westbury Neighborhood Association
DATE: November 26, 2004
TO: Charles Bloom
Planner
City of Little Rock/Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
FROM: Mr. & Mrs. Herbert R. Byrd
700 Pine Valley Rd.
Little Rock, AR 72207
M E M O R A N D U M
This is in response to your recent notification to us of your
plans to review the land use plan and zoning for our property
in the 19900 block of Highaay-10; parcel # 53L-015.00-018.02.
This property is currently zoned C-3 and ae have listed it for
sale through a real estate broker. We have no objection to
the City of Little Rock changing the land use plan from park/open
space to commercial
IFIF-10 ) //-4 4 - 4 ye
NeWrbertByr (date)
PS: You may wish to change your records to reflect the correct
spelling of our name; riot Boyd, but Byrd.
H. R. BYRD - 700 PINE VALLEY RD -
Page 1 of 1
Bloom, Charles
From: Judy Beaumont Obeaumont@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:04 AM
To: Bloom, Charles
Subject: Amendment package LU04-1903
Mr. Bloom:
I am a resident of Westbury Subdivision and our association is opposing this amendment package that is
considering changing the transitional status of these lots that serve as a buffer to our neighborhood. Aso, our
neighborhood only has one way in and out. Another concern is safety of our residents and visitors safely entering
the neighborhood off of Cantrell because of the speeding -dense traffic. Our neighboorhood would loose it's value
as we continue to ignore what was originially designed for this corridor. Please give our concerns your
consideration. Thank you. Judy Beaumont 868-8974.
12/9/2004
December 1, 2004
RE: LU04-19-03
DEC 0 2 2004
Walter Malone
723 West Markham St
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Dear Sir,
The Westbury neighborhood association met last night in regards to a couple of zoning
items. I understand that there are a few parcels of land that may be up for re -zoning. The
areas that I am specifically concerned with are as follows:
from Transition to Mixed Office &Commercial
=-*hfl n,6-,6-`1~ra4l,844e rcial
These areas will directly effect the traffic at the entrance and the quality of our
neighborhood. There are 75 homes in the Westbury subdivision and we only have a
single entrance/exit. It is already very difficult, if not dangerous to enter and exit the
neighborhood and the addition of commercial lots would only complicate our situation.
I understand that development will happen down the Cantrell corridor, but I hope that
development happened responsibly. I do not oppose the change from Transition to an
Office use, but I do oppose any change from a Transition use to a Commercial use. I also
believe that the land use plan that is in place should stay as it is.
Mark Littrell
14315 Westbury Dr
Little Rock, AR 72223
Bloom, Charles
From: Wildwing [wildwing@ipa.net]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:32 AM
To: Bloom, Charles
Subject: Re: Ammendment Pkg.
In reference to Ammendment Pkg. LU04-19-03 on Hwy. 10:
We oppose changeing Itefn`2 M. and 27.
We are concerned Westbury subdivision residents.
Jan Crosby
Carlton and Elsie Crosby
12/10/2004
New Ckan�e �/g
Page 1 of 1
WESTBURY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
6 Worthington Court
Little Rock, AR 72223
December 6, 2004
Mr. Walter Malone
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street -
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
RE: LU04-19-03 Change to land use plan of Ihway 10
Dear Mr. Malone:
Our neighborhood association receivpd and discussed the suggested revisions to the land
use on Highway to/CanWeld. W are vppvsed to the proposed changes to the
.folltiwih tracts: 'Tracts# 25 Dur neighl?orl bo'd has ot3iy one eiitranice which
Iies on—Highway 10. To change these tracts from Transition to Comrhercial and I OC
0& -R -R d}Office tvzitiherciafyNwill'make it V&y' r us to'get i ri'an� out of6
neighborhood and will lower thevalue of our residential properties.
The Larid' Use Categories set out by the City of Little Rock Planning Department
(Revised 4-1-00) describes the Transition Land Use as follows:
Transition is a land use plan designation that provides for an orderly
transition between residential uses and other more intense uses. Transition
was established to deal with areas which contain zoned residential uses
and nonconforming nonresidential uses ... Uses that may be considered are
low-density multi -family residential and office uses if the proposals are
compatible with quality of life in nearby residential areas.
The transition land use provides protection to our neighborhood's quality of life. The
mixed office commercial and commercial do not. We are therefore very much opposed
to this sudden change from transition to commercial in these tracts which are around our
neighborhood.
Som&-fe'sidetits have already moved out ofour neighborhood'due to the dangerous traffic
situation arid-expansion'of commercial nodes in our area in contradiction 'of the Highway
10 'Iario `u`se' plan set oilf in tfi&iarly 199Q's:. Many opus purChasM aur -homes `iv@th the
understanding that the commercial developments on Highway 10 would be limited to the
commercial nodes set out- in that plan. After we -made the most 'expeiisive investment that
many of us will make in our lifetimes, the rules are being changed on us, in violation of
what was set out by the city in the past.
Tract #25. Tract #26
Tract #25 is immediately opposite of our neighborhood. Tract #26 is just across Pinnacle
Valley and the creek and from Tract #25. The proposal is to change these tracts from
Transition to MOC (Mixed Office Commercial). It is already very difficult for us to get
onto Highway 10. To make these changes will make it virtually impossible for us to turn
left out of our neighborhood.
To change these tracts will create a continuous commercial node from the bank east of
Sonic to the Walgreens, west of Taylor Loop Road. This will create a very large
commercial node around our neighborhood. We believe that this will in substance lead to
a violation of Section 36-301 of the Little Rock Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance which
provides:
It is the intent of these regulations that the C-3 District be concentrated at
the intersection of arterial streets. Extension of this district along major
arterial streets in linear fashion shall be discouraged.
Allowing the land use of these tracts to be changed from transition to some form of
commercial development will place the city in the position of having to defend creation
of a large linear strip of commercial development along a major arterial street. Placing
the city and our neighborhood in that situation will not be beneficial to either the city or
our neighborhood.
Tract #27
Tract #27 lies in between Cantrell Road and the eastern part of our neighborhood. There
is approximately 50' feet of park/open space between our neighborhood and the tract in
front of it. This 50' of open space contains 3 large water mains. I very seriously doubt
that Central Arkansas Water would allow any trees be planted in this area to provide a
buffer between our neighborhood and any developments in front of it. It is not
appropriate to place a commercial development adjacent to our neighborhood across 50
feet of open ground.
We believe that office developments that are compatible with the quality of life in our
residential neighborhood would be more appropriate. Therefore, we respectfully request
that you reconsider and withdraw the proposal to change these tracts from transition to
commercial and mixed office commercial.
Sincerely,
Nathan C
Attorney aw
President of Westbury Neighborhood Association
November 22, 2004
Mr. Charles Bloom
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
re: LU04-19-03, Highway 10 Land Use Review
Dear Mr. Charles Bloom,
The Little Maumelle Extension Homemakers Club has been in existence since 1950 at this
location. We will continue use of this property as our meeting place and wish to retain "PI" status
as our land use category.
Sincerely,
Dorlene Altman, Secretary
Little Maumelle Extension Homemakers Club
(Other signatures are attached)
�� �Ozwd"&
December 7, 2004
Department of Planning & Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Re: LU04-19-03, Highway 10 Land Use Review
Dear Mr. Bloom:
I am the owner of Parcel #43L-0008.00-047.00. I am writing to let you know we are very
much against any changes at this time, other than changing to Commercial. We have
lived here 38 years. All of our neighbors are being zoned Commercial. Right now we
have a bank right across the street and businesses on either side of us. We feel that
changing the zoning to Park/Open Space will greatly lower our property value, and feel
that this would not be right.
Again, we are GREATLY AGAINST being re -zoned to Park/Open Space.
Cordiall
Tommy Tucker
HUGH L. BROWN
Attorney at Law
7220 Ohio
Little Rock, AR 72207
(501)666-2999
December 8, 2004
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning & Development
123 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Attn: Charles Bloom, Planner 1
RE: LU04-19-03 Highway 10 Land Use Review
Dear Mr. Bloom:
AX $ Zad�
OCG Q
r
Ileane Tucker requested that I assist her in responding to your letter of November 17, 2004. Mr.
Tommy Tucker has already responded to your letter (copy enclosed).
Ms. Ileane Tucker does object and will vigorously resist ante e change from commercial to
parks/open space as your letter suggests if the value of the land from the
amount which is already off--- ' '
As you surely know, the
Planning Board for
rezoning the commercial \
ull Board next. Ms.
Tucker is disturbed by thi
City concerning the
property but which was n( ��
he Planning Board.
Just as Mr. Tucker asserts,
led on the property for
over 3 8 years, they have en
�inual increase in land
taxes, but have watched the
10 corridor. It has
been their expectation that tl
would sell as
commercial property and the-
;nt which will aid them
in their retirement. Your lett(
is that the highest and
best use for the property is coi
In your discussion with Ms. Tu _, .,,.aen she called you on the morning of Wednesday,
December 8, 2004, was the intended use of the property was for a buffer zone. Obviously, that
intended use must arise from the residents who opposed the zoning change before the Board
recently — but who are Johnnys-come-lately to the area who have contributed nothing to the
Tuckers' taxes and expense for the property over the years. Further, the Tuckers are unaware of
any other similar buffers created regarding the other properties which have been allowed
rezoning to commercial and which already area built up commercially. As must be apparent to
you, Ms. Tucker is very emotionally charged up regarding the suggested change of land use made
in your letter of November 17, 2004.
Ms. Tucker requests that any future notices regarding any hearings or other matters concerning
the property be separately sent to her. Further, if the land use change suggested in your said letter
goes forward, then Ms. Tucker requests that the City produce copies of everything in the City's
file pertaining to this land and the City's proposed change under the Arkansas and Federal
Freedom of Information Acts.
Since ly,
Hugh L. Brown
cc: Ileane Tucker
Tommy E. Tucker
(THIS LETTER HAND -DELIVERED DECEMBER 8, 2004 TO OFFICE OF PLANNING,
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK.)
City of Little Rock
Department of Planning and Development Planning
723 West Markham Street Zoning and
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Subdivision
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 or 371-6863
November 17, 2004
Tommy E & Ileane Tucker
14919 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72212
re: LU04-19-03, Highway 10 Land Use Review
Dear Sir or Madam,
The. Pulaski County Assessor's Office
SF
lists you or your organization as the
owner of parcel # 43L-008.00-047.00
located along the Highway 10 Corridor SF ti.eKns ;'
between the Joe T. Robinson Schools
(near Highway 300) and Pankey,;
(Black Street) in Little Rock,
Arkansas.
The Department of Planning and
Development has been in the processl.R
of reviewing the Land Use Plan and +
Zoning for the area in and around
your property. The proposed changes
are a result of discussions and review W �.
,by city staff at the request of the ;r. r,'ctoPMS a p
Board of Directors. Your property is�.,.JEROME DR
currently shown as Commercial,
Transition, or Single Family. There is
a proposal to change the Land Use category for your property to Park/Open Space
A list of Land Use Plan categories is attached as well as a brochure concerning Land Use Plan
Amendments. A change to the Land Use Plan does not change your zoning or taxes.
Please contact us indicating your wishes to the address above before Friday December 10, 2004.
If no response is given, the planning staff will view this as an acceptance of the change in the
Land Use Plan category. The change will then be taken before the Planning Commission and
later to the Board of Directors. The Planning Commission meeting is held at City Hall at 4:00 p.m.
on February 3, 2005.
Any questions can be directed to Brian Minyard or Charles Bloom at 371-4790.
Sincerely,
Charles Bloom
Planner I
lip
aFC 0
r
3
Nib
i
4�90, Y6,e 2
Ae 7A,�;
0 8 20041
i
2
i
CHP
Gene and Linda Pfeifer
16300 Cantrell — Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
Phone: 501-866-5222 Fax 501-868-5252
e-mail: pfeiferiii@earthlink.net
December 10, 2004
Walter Malone
Planning Manager
723 West Markham Avenue
Little Rock, AR 72205
Re: Resident Comments On Proposed Highway 10 Plan Revision
Dear Mr. Malone:
RE EVE
7
DEC j. 04
BY:
I have thought a good deal about the City's planned revision of the Highway 10 Corridor
Land Use Plan that is currently underway. As a resident, a property owner, a businessman
involved in all aspect of real estate development, and as someone who has been involved in the
Planning of Highway 10 since the beginning of the scenic corridor planning, I wanted my
comments to rest on my own "institutional" memory, current realities and thoughts about the
future.
As you know, the current Highway 10 Plan was designed as a result of considerable
thought and substantial public involvement when the development pressures along Highway 10
were beginning to be felt. In my view, it has frankly been a success and I take a measure of pride
in that success as the developer of The Ranch, Chevaux Court, Westbury and other parcels
conforming to and enhancing the Plan. It was put in place early and it was predicated, like any
good plan, on a few simple, easily explained and defended principles. Essentially the plan called
for, and located, limited commercial "nodes." Buffering those "nodes" were "transition" zones
that required consideration of both "use" (principally office or multifamily) and "scale." The
central governing principle was that for property outside those commercial nodes, existing
residential uses would not be rendered obsolete and in fact new small scale single and mixed uses,
including single _family residential, would thus be encouraged. I have set an example with the
success of both Chevaux Court and Westbury although without support from the City no other
new residential development in the transition zone has occurred. Still, that simple articulable
rationale is, to me, the essence of good planning and the opposite of the sort of ad hoc and micro-
Walter Malone
December 10, 2004
Page 2
managed process in which development almost always gets bogged down when a land use plan is
not simple, is not coherent, and is not easy to explain and apply.
Frankly, I see no similar overarching principles governing the proposed map that was sent
out for comment. I think history has shown that without that simplicity we will have only a series
of ad hoc micro decisions that are made politically through unconnected compromises. Such
process unfortunately has made Chenal Boulevard/Kanis no better than Rodney Parham and
Rodney Parham no better than University.
If the City has determined (which I do not believe) that the development pressures are so
great that a simple articulable line can no longer be held on Highway 10, I am not sure that in the
medium -run my wife and I can continue to maintain our current residence and therefore I also
have comments on the micro level of the proposed map.
As you know, my residence is located as part of a tract of 70 acres I own in an area
currently zoned "transition." That planning designation, as identified in the old Plan, gave me
(and I suppose my "heirs") comfort on two fronts: so long as the Plan remained in effect I can
enjoy my "country living." If the plan changes to the extent that my wife and I have to move, we
have an "out" of permissible office or multi -family use within a "transition" zoning. Under the
proposed Plan however my property becomes "single family," and about the only "stretch" of
single family on the entire corridor. Those changes remove both `protections" on which I was
relying.
Moreover, the planned Plan that should have "controlled" a development in the vicinity of
my residence doesn't even have the "virtue" of conforming to what is actually built, namely the
Bella Rosa POD currently being constructed. This is particularly true when a pending revision of
the POD is factored in. That POD on 7.5 Acres almost directly across Highway 10 from my
house was originally approved last year (without required notice to me and several other
adjacent owners) as "office" buffering a "mini -warehouse." There is, as you know, under
consideration for pending approval a revision of that POD turning the office "buffer" into a
predominately C-3 commercial/showroom use. PODZ-6219813. This revision inexplicably has
staff approval. Yet the proposed "Plan" continues to show that property as "transition" and no
plan change is apparently now considered necessary. Simply put, under the proposal, the planning
designation would, as I read it, be "suburban office" even though the revised Bella Rosa POD, if
approved, will be almost exclusively a combination of C-3 and used C-4 uses. That is inexplicable
to me as a matter of policy, and frankly will further make the proposed change from transition to
single family on my property both poor planning and unacceptable. If the property across
Highway 10 is completely just C-3 and C-4, (none of which was to be approved in the transition
zone, my ownership on which I have my residence and pasture will not be a suitable site for a
single family development when I need to move and need to do something with the "excess"
undeveloped real estate.
Walter Malone
December 10, 2004
Page 3
cc:
In summary, what I would like to see is:
1. A change in the staff recommendation on the Bella Rosa revision to "denial'.
2. My property remain as "transition."
Thomas M. Carpenter, Esq
Christopher O. Parker, Esq.
No
Page 1 of 1
Bloom, Charles
From: Wildwing [wildwing@ipa.net]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:32 AM
To: Bloom, Charles
Subject: Re: Ammendment Pkg.
In reference to Ammendment Pkg. LU04-19-03 on Hwy. %
We oppose changeing Item 25, 26, and 27.
We are concerned Westbury subdivision residents.
Jan Crosby
Carlton and Elsie Crosby
12/10/2004
WESTBURY NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
6 Worthington Court
Little Rock, AR 72223
December 6, 2004
Mr. Walter Malone
Department of Planning & Development
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
RE: LU04-19-03 Change to land use plan of Highway 10
Dear Mr. Malone:
Our neighborhood association received and discussed the suggested revisions to the land
use on Highway 10/Cantrell Rd. We are opposed to the proposed changes to the
following tracts: Tracts #27, #26,� #25. Our neighborhood has only one entrance which
lies on Highway 10. To change these tracts from Transition to Commercial and MOC
(Mixed Office Commercial) will make it very' dangerous for us to, get in 'and out' of our
neighborhood and will lower the value of our residential properties.
The Land Use Categories set out by the City of Little Rock Planning Department
(Revised 4-1-00) describes the Transition Land Use as follows:
Transition is a land use plan designation that provides for an orderly
transition between residential uses and other more intense uses. Transition
was established to deal with areas which contain zoned residential uses
and nonconforming nonresidential uses ... Uses that may be considered are
low-density multi -family residential and office uses if the proposals are
compatible with quality of life in nearby residential areas.
The transition land use provides protection to our neighborhood's quality of life. The
mixed office commercial and commercial do not. We are therefore very much opposed
to this sudden change from transition to commercial in these tracts which are around our
neighborhood.
Some residents have already moved out of our neighborhood due to the dangerous traffic
situation and expansion of commercial nodes in our area in contradiction of the Highway
10 land use plan set out in the early 1990's. Many of us purchased our homes with the
understanding that the commercial developments on Highway 10 would be limited to the
commercial nodes set out in that plan. After we made the most expensive investment that
many of us will make in our lifetimes, the rules are being changed on us, in violation of
what was set out by the city in the past.
TrAct #25, Tract #26
Tract #25 is immediately opposite of our neighborhood. Tract #26 is just across Pinnacle
Valley and the creek and from Tract #25. The proposal is to change these tracts from
Transition to MOC (Mixed Office Commercial). It is already very difficult for us to get
onto Highway 10. To make these changes will make it virtually impossible for us to turn
left out of our neighborhood.
To change these tracts will create a continuous commercial node from the bank east of
Sonic to the Walgreens, west of Taylor Loop Road. This will create a very large
commercial node around our neighborhood. We believe that this will in substance lead to
a violation of Section 36-301 of the Little Rock Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance which
provides:
It is the intent of these regulations that the C-3 District be concentrated at
the intersection of arterial streets. Extension of this district along major
arterial streets in linear fashion shall be discouraged.
Allowing the land use of these tracts to be changed from transition to some form of
commercial development will place the city in the position of having to defend creation
of a large linear strip of commercial development along a major arterial street. Placing
the city and our neighborhood in that situation will not be beneficial to either the city or
our neighborhood.
Tract #27
Tract #27 lies in between Cantrell Road and the eastern part of our neighborhood. There
is approximately 50' feet of park/open space between our neighborhood and the tract in
front of it. This 50' of open space contains 3 large water mains. I very seriously doubt
that Central Arkansas Water would allow any trees be planted in this area to provide a
buffer between our neighborhood and any developments in front of it. It is not
appropriate to place a commercial development adjacent to our neighborhood across 50
feet of open ground.
We believe that office developments that are compatible with the quality of life in our
residential neighborhood would be more appropriate. Therefore, we respectfully request
that you reconsider and withdraw the proposal to change these tracts from transition to
commercial and mixed office commercial.
Sincerely,
-"
Nathan C. Cu
Attorney aw
of Westbury Neighborhood Association
Page 1 of 1
Bloom, Charles
From: Judy Beaumont Ubeaumont@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:04 AM
To: Bloom, Charles
Subject: Amendment package LU04-1903
Mr. Bloom:
I am a resident of Westbury Subdivision and our association is opposing this amendment package that is
considering changing the transitional status of these lots that serve as a buffer to our neighborhood. Aso, our
neighborhood only has one way in and out. Another concern is safety of our residents and visitors safely entering
the neighborhood off of Cantrell because of the speeding -dense traffic. Our neighboorhood would loose it's value
as we continue to ignore what was originially designed for this corridor. Please give our concerns your
consideration. Thank you. Judy Beaumont 868-8974.
12/9/2004
Bryan E Hosto'+
Charles J. Buchan+o
Mark A Sexton+
Paul A Prater+
Michae1B Halls—
Bryan P Christian+o
Kelly Weinzimer+
Joel D Boyd+
November 29, 2004
Mr. Charles Bloom
HOSTO & BUCHAN, P.L.L.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
MAIN OFFICE
P.O. BOX 3397
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72203
(501) 374-1300
8117 PRESTON RD„ STE 300 WEST 42 4525 HARDING ROAD, STE 218
DALLAS, TX 75225 NASHVILLE, TN 37205
(866)530-7442 (866)530-7442
CITY OF LITTLE ROCK
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Re: Land Use Review - LU04-19-03; Parcel No. 53L-014-00-015-00
Our Client: Bettye Hosto
Dear Mr. Bloom;
I represent my mother, Bettye Hosto, in the above referenced land use review.
Facsimile (501) 372-3850
e-mail: bhostc@hosto.com
+Licensed in Arkansas
' Licensed in Tennessee
D Licensed in Texas
°Licensed in Alabama
We are opposed to the designation "SO - Suburban Office" for her property. The proximity to
Chenonceau and the major developments happening near the property seem to indicate that the
proper designation should be "C" or "Commercial".
In the event that your office continues to seek an "SO" designation, we would like the opportunity
to be heard at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. We vigorously oppose an "SO"
designation for this property.
I appreciate your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Hosto
BEH:rsp
November 30, 2004
Mr. Charles Bloom
Depart of Planning and Development
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Mr. Bloom:
I am in receipt of your letter informing me that you are reviewing the Land Use Plan for
Pine Mountain Road off Cantrell/Highway 10. I own the property at #5 and am
OP�to the rezyittg to Mixed Office Commercial.
The neighborhood is mostly retired folks and to find another location for them and to
rezone would destroy an established neighborhood. I think there is plenty of
Office/Commercial property vacant in Little Rock that needs to be rented before we
rezone.
Thanks for your consideration.
P�t `-OpenT, f, � e 6 41, / 6 J/ ol'— li - / Q —
T� 1
-� ` A '! p't'1 rr
I
?,7, Z, -2-3
Lls�- o�
Cl4w/ r
�. '' 15 &S.
PICA V? ni i't C&MVO': r �'�'+
- 3m,-Ilf�h
A- 0y c
rr
�xldj� .
/zL /&/C� 4u -c C—S
zo,qllt or "
119,ti7 •il CX6-mP. �
//r�m 94 Jhcus4 d
1/0-7 /y,
D-�k-VA �v CXy
p6v�)
1141 A- ��
6z--
L,F kl:�' 6L,.
76- -o k
Pte, �-)pv(d- (-r-
4- cam,,,
UJ( 0�
B� V
s �
j Y6
fix,. - -
r
1Q1� 4-� hill
q��s
� 5 qq �j'�� 6n- outf 4r
#--/C) cC6mA4U�s ,
Idll9JZoa�f
�La%i�� keGly
S A1C . awc(
cls �� r n k1 �- K.
15
(ls2la�l�r � jhl�h Si Pic r � t.0 I!
( YIot
err-
c6G c6 -)g35 Aj'c & r� I
4Y -i
GL I
1-
��
Nar4'hL5/t Chu" .�
�- -
Ae-l-SOk have- 'cid 77
c1hq n - Ccn ce/p-a �60crp Cil ul- ch
So u 6-r— Alke.
►e P
l
ouA
M
Z
"-s
Q
V
Lu
Z
O
z
CL
Lj�JLI!jL)
FOR DATE_
M.`
OF NZ7
_. {.
PH
-
PHONE/
MOBILE FA?S 7D
MESSAGE TELEPHONED
RETURNED YOUR CALL
PLEASE CALL
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
SIGNED El WANTS TO SEE YOU
IFOR
OF
PHONE/ ��j
MOBILE - _ J PATS.
MESSAGE
SIGNED
WLsL�
ElTELEPHONED
11 RETURNED YOUR CALL
PLEASE CALL
WILL CALL AGAIN
CAME TO SEE YOU
1154 [.
WANTS TO SEE YOU
\ |U
' ' '------------_--_--
Cr'
|-------' �------ '---- --------- -----v ~ ^^ -`��' pal--~ - -�f� . --`----
-7
-)Q C-(?
(9- 47 v/
-.
' -
-----------
mq41n - SliOf pk,107
50- a io W*i-<-6e� r
Co fix: e-. 7 a �lirain �I Pl" n
icy
a � 44 2Z*
jc,� 12,J -
jr� � .��►r ®nom � ,,.
7A o:;,e - . VL -� I I u.)
mAod-1 cc)1
1,�► ,4;
�27
A
j
mi
V
W
Z
0
0.
FOR
M
JAM
ATE � Z• TlN1 _ • " P.M.
�bff 1 Ick
OF
pIHONEJ
[
MOBILE
x
MESSAGE
ELEPHONED
RETURNED YOUR CALL
PLEASE CALL
WILLCALLAGAIN
" u
CAME TO SEE YOU
WANTS TO SEE YOU
El
SIGNED
i$
5d
us � 0,D L f7v
C,Lk,d - 01-1-2 /V
�? Cet re- a Gds
ct f Sn
� h��� X6,1►���
a �.
.; _.
l
r
--�w
1�.� � _ -- _ _ - -
� -_ - --.
Page 1 of 1
Bloom, Charles
From: John Rees [frees@reesdevelopment.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 4:28 PM
To: Bloom, Charles
Subject: Re: LU04-19-03, Highway 10 Land Use Review
Dear Charles,
I am in favor of changing the land use plan in that area of the city at what I think should be an
even larger commercial node at the intersection of Hway 10 and Taylor Loop Road. I think this
area all the way from Hway 10 for 800 feet east and west of Taylor Loop Road and from Hway
10 to the small creek behind my property should be able to be not mixed use but commercial.
This is one of those large commercial nodes that should be zoned commercial since there are
numerous office tracts up and down Highway 10 that anyone could purchase and build on but
there is a very limited supply of commercially zoned real estate and this area makes sense to
have commercial zoning because of the intersections of Highway 10 and Taylor Loop with an
existing stop light and many commercial properties already existing in that area.
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to tell you my views on this area of town. It's should be a
very good area for development to occur if the city will allow these larger commercial nodes to
occur at intersections along the Highway 10 (Cantrell Road) corridor. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Rees- -
JOHN A. REES
REES DEVELOPMENT, INC.
11719 Hinson Road, Suite 130
Little Rock, AR 72212
Office: (501) 223-9298 Fax: (501) 223-9331
Mobile: (501) 993-7337 (Rees)
Email: 'tees es Vvelopment.com
11/23/2004
13610 County Farm RD
Little Rock, AR
November 29,2004
Charles Bloom
Planner I
Department of Planning and Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas 72223
Dear Charles:
On behalf of my clients, Robert and Mary Thomason, I am requesting that their
property be removed from LU04-19-03, Highway 10 Land Use Review. Some of
their land is in my clients' personal names and other tracts are in the name of
their company, First Financial Computer Services, Inc. The ownership compiles
the following tracts identified by the Pulaski County Assessor's Office:
53R-014.00-040.00
5100-09,5100.10
009.02
3700-01
009.03
8000-00
039.02
3760-01
I have attached a copy of the assessor's map identifying the tracts described
above. If their land is not removed from your plan revision, we would further
request that their property remain as commercial instead of changing to office.
The Thomason's property has been used as office/commercial for over 15 years.
The majority of the property is a commercial rather than an office use. The office
is a support function of the commercial business. Their annual $12 million+
business in the sales, maintenance and refurbishing of computer equipment has
grown from their Little Rock location to servicing clients in 36 states.
Many of their clients are banking institutions that require 24/7 maintenance.
Parts are flown from the parts inventory in Little Rock to clients through out the
United States. FFC maintains a part inventory from computers purchased from
United States and Europe. They buy mainframe type computers and take parts
from them or refurbish them including painting in their paint shop.
Cleary their use of the property should not be shown as an office use. The initial
plan and zoning was for commercial. They were part of the City's Existing
Business Node and were zoned PCD. Their history of the past 15 years would
show a more intense use than office.
Please let me know what is your next step. I can be reached at 837-4938 or
jimlawsart(q),gQ _cora. Thank you for your assistance.
cc. Bryan Minyard
Robert and Mary Thomason
December 1, 2004
RE: LU04-19-03
Walter Malone
723 West Markham St
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
TVE
DEC 0 2 2004
LBY'
Dear Sir,
The Westbury neighborhood association met last night in regards to a couple of zoning
items. I understand that there are a few parcels of land that may be up for re -zoning. The
areas that I am specifically concerned with are as follows:
#25 change from Transition to Mixed Office & Commercial
#26 change from Transition to Mixed Office & Commercial
#27 change from Transition to Commercial
These areas will directly effect the traffic at the entrance and the quality of our
neighborhood. There are 75 homes in the Westbury subdivision and we only have a
single entrance/exit. It is already very difficult, if not dangerous to enter and exit the
neighborhood and the addition of commercial lots would only complicate our situation.
I understand that development will happen down the Cantrell corridor, but I hope that
development happened responsibly. I do not oppose the change from Transition to an
Office use, but I do oppose any change from a Transition use to a Commercial use. I also
believe that the land use plan that is in place should stay as it is.
Sincerely,
Mark Littrell
14315 Westbury Dr
Little Rock, AR 72223
November 24, 2004
Mr. Charles Bloom
City Planning 1
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Via Certified Mail #7000 0600 0022 5894 4443
RE: LV04-19-03
Taylor Ten Partnership
Highway 10 Partnership
Dear Charles:
E42
In response to our meeting to discuss the City of Little Rock's review of the Highway 10
Land Use Plan, I want to reiterate my strong opposition to any change at present to the
land use plan as it would affect these parcels of land.
I would request to be notified and included in any formal meeting or presentation for a
proposed land use change to the Planning Commission or to the Board of Directors.
As we discussed at length, it is my opinion that a proper planned development should be
submitted to City staff for review and evaluation by the Planning Commission with
impact from all parties.
Again, thank you for your time and explanation of the proposal. I again request to be
notified of any meeting to adopt any changes.
Yo ily,
Robert A. Vogel
Managing Partner
Highway 10 Partnership
Taylor Ten Partnership
RAV/cdc
VOGEL REALTY COMPANY ■ 11219 Financial Centre Parkway, Financial Park Place, Suite 300 ■ Little Rock, AR 72211
501-225-6018 ■FAX: 501-225-6308
Page 1 of 1
Bloom, Charles
From: John Rees [frees@reesdevelopment.coml
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 2004 4:28 PM
To: Bloom, Charles
Subject: Re: LU04-19-03, Highway 10 Land Use Review
Dear Charles,
I am in favor of changing the land use plan in that area of the city at what I think should be an
even larger commercial node at the intersection of Hway 10 and Taylor Loop Road. I think this
area all the way from Hway 10 for 800 feet east and west of Taylor Loop Road and from Hway
10 to the small creek behind my property should be able to be not mixed use but commercial.
This is one of those large commercial nodes that should be zoned commercial since there are
numerous office tracts up and down Highway 10 that anyone could purchase and build on but
there is a very limited supply of commercially zoned real estate and this area makes sense to
have commercial zoning because of the intersections of Highway 10 and Taylor Loop with an
existing stop light and many commercial properties already existing in that area.
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to tell you my views on this area of town. It's should be a
very good area for development to occur if the city will allow these larger commercial nodes to
occur at intersections along the Highway 10 (Cantrell Road) corridor. Thank you.
Sincerely,
John Rees
JOHN A. REES
REES DEVELOPMENT, INC.
11719 Hinson Road, Suite 130
Little Rock, AR 72212
Office: (501) 223-9298 Fax: (501) 223-9331
Mobile: (501) 993-7337 (Rees)
Email:jrees@reesde.velopmen.t.com
11/23/2004
December 6, 2004
Mr. Walter Malone
Planning Manager
723 West Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201-1334
Reference: Hwy 10 Land Use Review
Dear Mr. Malone,
Overall I agree with the plan with two Exceptions. I feel the property between the
Westbury Neighborhood and Hwy 10 should remain Transition and not be changed to
Commercial. Also the property across from this area should remain Transition and not
change to Mixed Office and Commercial.
There is plenty of Commercial along Hwy 10 without this addition. Through these
additions you are not adhering to the Design Overlay District -Hwy 10 Scenic Corridor
Plan. This change doesn't seem to fit the purpose of this area under Section 36-343
Purpose One through Five.
These are odd shaped properties and will be difficult to develop under any land use plan.
On the other hand it is not the city's responsibility to assist the land owner or developer to
make the development easier to accomplish.
Your consideration will be appreciated.
Sincerely,
,e IL 16-4�
D K Robinson
6 Westchester Cove
Little Rock, AR 72223