The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutsept 8 2004 letter property owner responses., Ed K. Willis President rm FINANCIAL CENTRE CORPORATION September 28, 2004 Mr. Walter Malone City of Little Rock Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Re: Land Use Plan Highway 10 Little Rock, Arkansas Dear Walter: Pursuant to your correspondence dated September 8, 2004 and out subsequent telephone conversation of September 11, 2004 I am requesting the following changes to the existing land use plan. 1. The Ranch - change the land use plan to correspond to the existing zonings classifications: a. Leisure Arts, Cingular Wireless and Family Life change from MOC to 0-2 office. b. Tract B - change the remaining 4 acres of Tract B from MOC to C. C. Tract H - change from MF to C. (� ,c,'.,<<-:1_ d. Tract D - change the remaining approximate 12 acres of Tract D from MOC to C. e. Eliminate the PK/OS from Katillus Road to Ranch Boulevard which is not necessary now that the Highway 10 overlay standards are now in place. 2. Northwest Territory - change the land use plan to correspond to the existing zoning classifications: d ..-� L- a. a. George Property - change from SF to C. -XLO'-' �"` `-' b. Eliminating the PK/OS at the Chenal Parkway/ Cantrell Road intersection which is no longer necessary now that Highway 10 overlay standards are in place. Sincerely, Ed K. Willis Three Financial Centre • P.O. Box 56350 • Little Rock, AR 72211 • (501) 224-9600 • Fax (501) 224-3100 FROM : DEVELOPMENT CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED October 5, 2004 Ms. Donna James City of Lltde Rock Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Basham • Cantrell PCD DCI Project #04-014 Dear Donna: FAX N0. : Oct. 05 2004 10:15A11 P2 �(aw\ Odi—E3�` Cly' 2 I am providing this written request to defer the above referenced application and the related land use amendment to the December 2 mesUng of the Little Rock Planning Commission. As we have discussed, the developer Is considering changes to the original usage request in an attempt to resolve staff concerns and negotiate a more acceptable use mix. We also need to review the land use plan amendment with staff with respect to amending the current map and classification request that Is presented. The current dassiflcagon shown Is for full commwelal (C ) land use which does not accurately reflect the nature of the PCD appilcallon. The PCD appl'Iralior. specifically describes *3.57 acnes of the property as office. and 12.82 acres as oommerclal• We feel a change in tend use classification that raffoots mixed office commercial (MOO) for the entire tract, or one that indicates the proposed commercial area and maintains the office area as transition (T) would be a more accurate representation of the proposal. A third option Iney be to reclassify the office area for office land use. Please contact my office If you have any questions. Mr. Randy Frazier will be present at the October 7 meeting to answer any potential questions concerning the deferral request. Sincerely, abe ent Consultants, Inc. wn Vice Prest ent cc: Charles Basham Randy Frazier Fti., ino.-ring • Ylnn.ning Land Surveylag J.6n,W:al)e Arehimdure 2200 North Rplmy Parham Resin Sura 220 Lietle Rtwk, Aikens - 72212,4155 'Idephune 501-221-7,880 Pnx Ir W1,221.78811 G:04-014101611n)np10[0 : 4d.dua Willie & Brenda Godwin 16 Westchester Court Little Rock, AR. 72223 September 23, 2004 Little Rock Planning Commission 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Attn: Donna James Dear Commissioners; This correspondence is in regards to a proposed request to rezone, from Residential to Commercial, a property on the south side of Cantrell Road, West of Taylor Loop Road. The Property is adjacent to the David Claibourne store, formerly a Harvest Food Store. Willie and I have lived at #16 Westchester Court since 1992. Our home is 2 houses west of the David Claibourne property. Our home directly backs up to the center of the proposed development. The elevation of our house is 285 feet and the elevation of the rear proposed office buildings is 320 feet, which means the slabs would be 35' towering directly above our home, if approved with a 40 -feet setback. We request a compromise that would keep this development from greatly reducing the value of our property and that of our subdivision, in addition to the quality of our lifestyle at home. We ask for a 100 -foot wooded setback, which is what Harvest Food Store gave the neighborhood whenever it was built backing up to a residential area. This is a precedent that should have great consideration. We ask for an evergreen screen of 10' Leyland Cypress trees to be planted immediately at the back of the development where the development's concrete paving ends. We ask that these trees be planted in 3 rows on 15 feet centers. This screen would need to be planted on the south (back) and west property lines of the development to help cut down traffic noise we will hear once the hill and woods are cut down between our homes and Cantrell Road. Also this would be a barrier from the unit noise of the air conditioners and a barrier for the trash dumpsters that will be facing us. We request that all this development be zoned Transition only and not Commercial on the front part of the property. Please help us keep this development all office space. We also request that there be no outdoor speakers or paging systems on any of this development. We oppose any commercial development on this tract of land either now or in the future. A major concern of ours, as well as the whole neighborhood is that by granting the rezoning request you will most certainly exacerbate the existing flooding problem in the Westchester Development. More asphalt from commercial property will increase the water run off and surely lead to the inundation of Westchester Court homes at some future date. As recently as July 30, 2004 a summer downpour produced a flood in the street and nearly flooded the home of John Vaughn at #40 Westchester Court. David Hamilton, a city engineer who completed a site visit to Westchester Court and assessed the flooding situation determined this to be a serious flooding problem. Attached is a report from David Hamilton concerning this situation. This flooding situation is caused by the run-off of water from David Claiborne Store, which comes directly behind my house at present and continues on down to the above listed area. This new development will only compound this flooding problem. The developers should be required to install retaining walls, large underground drains, or whatever measures a Civil Engineer says will prevent this development from being a flood hazard. I have had numerous surgeries from bladder cancer over the past 2 years. My recoveries from each surgery would last for weeks and months at a time. During my seasons of recovery and even now, my comfort and peace of mind has been the serenity, peacefulness and beauty of the trees behind our home. We spend many hours of family time on our deck with hot tub and garden area. Our privacy will be destroyed if this development is approved. Enclosed are some photos taken at our property line to 40 feet so you can see how close the development will be to our backyard. Also enclosed is a photo of our backyard area, at present. If this development is approved and we lose the hill and beautiful woods, our property will be affected for all the years to come. Please give this application serious consideration from the view point of the Westchester Subdivision Property Owners. Thanking you in advance for your time in this matter. Best regards, Brenda and Willie Godwi } r 4N Oct 01 04 05:53p The Martins 501-668-5583 10.1 .The MartiM f(6 >n 0g1-0 3 Canterbury Court Little Rock, AR 72223 Phone & Fax: (501) 868-4303 Email: thecook7@comcast.net To: Walter Malone Company: LR Dept. of Planning & Development Fax #: 501-399-3435 Total Pages: 2 (including this page) Date: 1 October 2004 Message: Mr. Malone, As a resident in. Westchester neighborhood my husband and I are concerned about the proposed Hwy 10 Future Land Use Plan. We've lived here for 15 years and have seen, and expect to continue to see, many changes along Hwy 10. We have 2 main concerns. The first is the amount of current development along this corridor that is commercial In nature. Although these developments are now under construction. many of the tracts were rezoned from transition to something more commercial In nature. We would hope that if the current plan Is adopted that the planning commission would be hesitant to change the designated zoning. We'd like to see a moratorium on zoning changes until the current developments are completed and their impact on this area can be better judged. In addition to projects currently under construction there are 2 additional tracts of land that are asking for land use amendment. Our second concern is the traffic While the newly installed traffic lights along Hwy 10 have helped with some of the problems turning onto and off Hwy 10 there are still numerous areas where traffic becomes bottlenecked at various times of the day, especially during morning and afternoon work drive times and also around the times Robinson schools, Little Rock Christian and Arkansas Baptist schools begin and end. Again, we think a moratorium on zoning changes until the impact on the traffic generated from all the current building projects are completed would be in the best interest of not only this stretch of Hwy 10 but also to the east as well. We certainly know there will continue to be changes along Hwy 10. It is such a beautiful natural area. We hope that feeling can be maintained while still allowing for some business and commercial development mixed with other uses. We hope it can be developed into a showplace for other cities to model after. We think this can be accomplished with concerted planning and careful consideration of how each tract fits into the whole picture. Celia B. Martin. Treasurer, Westchester/Heatherbrae Neighborhood Assoc. Gene Martin September 15, 2004 Deptartment of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Dear Sir: Reference your letter dated September 8, 2004 regarding Land Use Review of the Hwy. 10 area. I agree with the present plan but my concern is the changes that have already been made and the continued requests for more changes. I feel that requests for more changes should be put on hold until we see what effect the present construction will have on the area. We are slowly losing what we considered a Green Belt area. One of our greatest assets is the natural beauty of this area and it is slowly fading away due to development. If this trend is not halted, we will have another Rodney Parham just a little further west. I also feel that zoning is one of the reasons for westward flight. People have moved west to get away from the traffic and commercial development. We bring to the area through zoning the same problems that families move west to get away from. Then we wonder why people keep moving further west. This flight costs the city money in street, sewer, police and fire protection and many other costs associated with a larger area to serve. Your consideration of these thoughts will be appreciated. Sincerely, D K Robinson 6 Westchester Cove Comments on Hwy 10 Future Land Use Plan Bloom, Charles From: Doug Mary [DougMary@familylife.com] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:01 PM To: Bloom, Charles Subject: Comments on Hwy 10 Future Land Use Plan Dear Little Rock City Planning Commission Members, Page 1 of 1 Thank you for serving as my representative on city planning issues and promoting Smart Growth in the decisions you make on my behalf. I am writing because of the ever increasing rezoning that is occurring along Hwy 10 (Cantrell Rd) in West Little Rock. Hwy 10, as you are aware, is a designated Scenic Corridor and is one of the main "Gateways" into our city. As I travel to work each morning I'm wondering how long this area will remain scenic with so much commercial development. Traffic is becoming increasingly congested and will only get worse as current developments reach completion. I pray that you will use wisdom in approving future requests for rezoning from commercial developers. If they are continued to be rubber stamped and approved the current situation will only get worse. Because of the scenic nature of this area, you are charged with maintaining it's beauty. Hwy 10 is still a beautiful gateway into our city but that will change if you continue to approve commercial development. If rezoning continues, Hwy 10 will no longer have commercial nodes, but rather a full strip of commercial development. One only has to drive Hwy 30 to Benton to be reminded of what unregulated commercial development will do to and area. Please be reminded of our past rezoning mistakes. Don't turn Hwy 10 into a commercialized mess! Instead I urge you to maintain some balance in commercial development to maintain scenic beauty and a positive reflection on the city of Little Rock. Thanks for listening, Doug -Ward 8008 N. Guenther Rd. Roland, AR 72135 Home: 501-868-5554 Daytime: 501-228-2367 E -Mail: dougmaryl@hotmail.com 9/30/04 Malone, Walter From: Tom Hughes (tomhughes@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 12:08 PM To: Malone, Walter Subject: Hwy 10 and our meeting Walter, Thank you so very much for spending time with me last Tuesday. I talked with the Maywood Manor Neighborhood and their opinion is that since your staff is not proposing any change to the present plan as it relates to our area, we see no need to present any proposals. We would like to state that we look with great interest and concern to what may occur with Stone's Market. We are concerned that the Norton Street residents that have put their 12 acres together for a sale will see Stone's Market development as a green light for their own commercial development. We would be opposed to commercial on Norton Street. Therefore, this is an official request that our neighborhood be made aware of Norton Street or Stone's Market activity that goes before the Planning Commission. Also, we would like to say that we appreciate you and your staff and the interest you have taken in us. We feel that Maywood Manor is the kind of neighborhood that many people would love to be able to live in. We have adjusted very well to the Wal Mart and the additional traffic and noise that has been created with development in this area. We are neighbors who can call each other by name and who look after each other. We are mixed in age, family composition, income, (and with our Cameroon student and my Korean son, we might ever be considered racially mixed?). The lack of deed restrictions does offer a challenge to keeping our , neighborhood as neat and tidy as those contiguous to us, but we try to use just good ole common sense to help others "see the light". Sometimes it works and sometimes not. Anyway, please consider this an official notification that Maywood Manor supports the continuation of single family in the areas you presently show on the land use plan. Again, the invitation for sweet tea on my front porch, equipped with old southern rockers, still stands. Bring the fam, we'll all get to know each other. With sincere thanks, Janet Hughes 1 Bloom, Charles From: Dr Janet Stannard [hilaryjan@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 3:49 PM To: Bloom, Charles Subject: Highway 10 rezoning Oct. 1st 2004 To: Dept. of Planning and Development cbloom@littlerock.state.ar.us. From: Janet H. Stannard MD jstnnrdmd@sbcglobal.net Re: Highway 10 Rezoning I am a member of the Pinnacle Neighborhood Association. I write to you to to express my concerns in connectiion with the Land Use Plan Review involving Highway 10 properties. I have lived in the Pinnacle area for over 25 years now. It was largely the beauty of this area, in close proximity to the amenities of Little Rock, which led my husband and myself, along with our two small chihldren, to relocate here. I have watched Highway 10 grow from a small two lane highway to its present state. The development was initially well regulated, with the new commercial structures some way off the highway and well blended into the environment. The Leisure Arts complex was an outstanding example of good planning and design and has won national recognition. In more recent years the development appears to have become less controlled, with large commercial complexes fronting right onto the highway. I am alarmed about the recent upsurge of commercial development which appears to be replacing former residential and green areas along what was designated a "Scenic Highway." I'm afraid the area will end up resembling another Rodney Parham or Bowman Curve. Yet I see a large number of vacant lots in the city of Little Rock. The traffic along Highway 10 is becoming increasingly congested. What was originally a 20 minute drive to school and work in Little Rock has now become a 45 minute or longer commute. I see more and more traffic accidents. Further development can only make the problem worse. In Britain, where I grew up, there are designated areas of "green belt" land surrounding the towns and cities. This encourages greater density in the cities and helps to prevent urban sprawl. The Smart Growth Plan, which was mentioned during the recent hearings regarding proposed development in this area, appears to be similar - involving denser development in the city and more green space further out. I am concerned that the whole character of this area, whose beauty has drawn myself and others to make it their home, may change irreparably into one of strip commercial development if greedy developers are allowed to have their way and further rezoning occurs. You have the opportunity to allow Highway 10 to remain an outstanding example of community development, with a balance of commercial development, residential and green areas. Please be mindful of your responsibilities to the community and the concerns of myself and others when upcoming decisions are made. Thank you. Janet H. Stannard MD 1 Bloom, Charles From: Dr Janet Stannard [hilaryjan@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 3:51 PM To: Bloom, Charles Subject: Highway 10 rezoning Oct. 1st 2004 To: Dept. of Planning and Development cbloom@littlerock.state.ar.us. From: Janet H. Stannard MD jstnnrdmd@sbcglobal.net Re: Highway 10 Rezoning I am a member of the Pinnacle Neighborhood Association. I write to you to to express my concerns in connectiion with the Land Use Plan Review involving Highway 10 properties. I have lived in the Pinnacle area for over 25 years now. It was largely the beauty of this area, in close proximity to the amenities of Little Rock, which led my husband and myself, along with our two small children, to relocate here. I have watched Highway 10 grow from a small two lane highway to its present state. The development was initially well regulated, with the new commercial structures some way off the highway and well blended into the environment. The Leisure Arts complex was an outstanding example of good planning and design and has won national recognition. In more recent years the development appears to have become less controlled, with large commercial complexes fronting right onto the highway. I am alarmed about the recent upsurge of commercial development which appears to be replacing former residential and green areas along what was designated a "Scenic Highway." I'm afraid the area will end up resembling another Rodney Parham or Bowman Curve. Yet I see a large number of vacant lots in the city of Little Rock. The traffic along Highway 10 is becoming increasingly congested. What was originally a 20 minute drive to school and work in Little Rock has now become a 45 minute or longer commute. I see more and more traffic accidents. Further development can only make the problem worse. In Britain, where I grew up, there are designated areas of "green belt" land surrounding the towns and cities. This encourages greater density in the cities and helps to prevent urban sprawl. The Smart Growth Plan, which was mentioned during the recent hearings regarding proposed development in this area, appears to be similar - involving denser development in the city and more green space further out. I am concerned that the whole character of this area, whose beauty has drawn myself and others to make it their home, may change irreparably into one of strip commercial development if greedy developers are allowed to have their way and further rezoning occurs. You have the opportunity to allow Highway 10 to remain an outstanding example of community development, with a balance of commercial development, residential and green areas. Please be mindful of your responsibilities to the community and the concerns of myself and others when upcoming decisions are made. Thank you. Janet H. Stannard MD Do You Yahoo!? 1 Page 1 of 1 Bloom, Charles From: Dornhoffer, Mary K [DornhofferMaryK@uams.edu] Sent: Wednesday, September 29.2004 2:16 PM To: Bloom, Charles My comments on the Land Use Plan are as follows: There has been a huge upsurge in rezoning along Hwy 10 and one wonders how it can remain scenic with so much commercial growth. In looking at the Future Land Use Plan map, red (commercial) and purple (primarily transition, mixed office & commercial) form a near continuous border from Pankey to Joe T. Robinson. Is this the goal of designating Hwy 10 a scenic corridor? We need more Park/Open Space along the highway as well as more low-density developments. I would like to see a reduction in the commercial zoning, particularly the huge node around the Hwy 10/Chenal intersection. The traffic along Hwy 10 has become increasingly congested as more and more commercial projects reach completion. If any more commercial rezoning occurs, we will no longer have "commercial nodes", but, rather, a full strip of commercial development. Instead of being a scenic corridor, Hwy 10 will look like the main strip in Branson. Is this the impression we want to give people entering the city for the first time? The city planners need to be mindful of their responsibility to promote a better community image through Smart Growth, and reducing commercial development along Hwy 10 is one way they can fulfill that goal. Thank you for this opportunity to give my feedback Sincerely, Mary Dornhoffer Pinnacle NA President Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message. 9/30/04 has N W N W N w � ;,:• W W W s N W 0 Cr A co 6 N N N iv 1 N o) A O O O` O O O O O C) O_ C) O_ CJl N A 00 w w O O cn . . C) C7 m 0) e w w p p mk, m C/) •_ U) < < N N N N OD OD W C7 C) D O z z D z M X X N r D C/) r r Z Z N O J N N N N N W W Cn Cn m m m m N N N W O Cn -I v V -! N N N jr7 N N N N• W W N N N W has -4 w o0 0 w oo ap w A co as co ao iv 1 N o) A w w e w w N N N N N N � N N N O J N N N N N W W Cn Cn A W N N N W O Cn cn cn rn O O N (p N W 1 O cn cn U) 'n O :3 CD OD NZ v Z -i N p N -' v O Q cS O O O O' O O O O O O � O O N A N A O W p W — CA CA Cn Cn Cn Cn N� A O O O O p O O O O O N N O p O O O O O O � i O O O O v v p O O O CD O C7' p L f-- L C- L L L L a, ;u ;ux m 0 0 0 0 0 0 x x x � O O Z Z T. T. T. T. T. D D Z Z •. -M C7 C) C7 C) C) C7 0 0 C (C!) rn 90 90 m m _m D D M' U) m m m m m m D D D 0) 0 CD 0 �4 oV 0 m m 2 2 = 2 2 2 N O O c0 9 m m m m m m D D O z' --A _' rr z z z z z Z z O O O `, m C) C7 C) 0 C) 0 D D r r Z O C C C C C C .'(O7 .Z0 7 _A r r ;a. -- o0 0o 0o w 0o co < O O O 0 C) O O m m O O D m m O O r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r m m m m m m m m m m m m m m -1 -4 V v v v v v v v v � v v N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N s N N N N N N N N N N Na W N W w W W W W W w W N N N N N N N N W Cb Cv N W N W N (.11 cn A W Cl) cn Cn has e w A M O O OCD p U1 U7 U1 W C) C) 0 Q 0 Q CD C) CD Q p p PO CD CD CD Q C) CD CD Q D D D r p O z z z 0 0 C w CD Wco coW 7l A x A T V V T V /2 V / c O O O 0o CO 0o m O O O ww r r r r m m m m N N N N j N N N w w w -� N e