HomeMy WebLinkAboutproperty owner letter Tucker about Transitionr
r
rl
' [(] rr.r
_o04CM
• 'r'r err
O
o
O _
LO r ry r
V a r �
•
I
M
LO
`°r yr
� O
M
GJ �* W
Ar eo v
KUL
Q
a
N
a
z }
F U
H
Uo
z0
Nz
u
z
oU
ro�z
0
z
U O
U
w
o
m
QE.za2,O
U
Q
O
Oz
zZ
zo�z
°mowO
z
[�
Xww
2i XXmZ
z= a
U
U 0
=U 3 U'
x U
[n X X U
r o
C [n _ a a Q
G �
of z
U U���
U) H r~ii O
®4
a
I
M
LO
`°r yr
� O
M
GJ �* W
Ar eo v
KUL
TOM MY E. TUCKER
14919 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
(501) 351-6255
October 21, 2009
City of Little Rock
Dept. of Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Attention: Eve Jorgenson
Re: LU09-02B, Transition to Suburban Office
parcel 43L0080004800 located at PT E 1/2
W1/2 W1/2 NE, NW BEG 180''E &4281'N
OF SW COR NE NW N 333' 'TO S R/W
HWY SE ON S R/W 91''S 2998',W85'
TO PT BEG 19 2N 13W in Little Rock, Arkansas
Dear Ms. Jorgenson:
The purpose of this letter is to reply to your letter of October 12, 2009 and to express my
opposition to the proposed zoning of my above captioned property by the Little Rock Planning &
Development Department to the classification of Suburban Office.
Your letter states : "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" This is
very disturbing; and I disagree ; and, apparently the planning department's proposed
classification is based upon that assumption. That is quite disturbing to me for several reasons. I
know that some of the residents of Westchester subdivision have made their desires known to the
planning department, but I'm unaware that their view is held by all residents.
To begin with, Ms. Tucker and I, and other longtime land owners in the area, were tolerant of the
developer's creation of that anomaly in the area (at least until the developer and his contractor
removed our back fence and ran and parked his equipment on our property and used our property
as their toilet). We certainly were there long before those residences. The City at the time
apparently considered that a tall board fence around the development to be a sufficient buffer
against the surrounding properties, together with an ingress and egress for the development to be
from Taylor Loop Road.
The City knew from the early 80s (and earlier) that the growth area for Little Rock had to be
Westward because the Arkansas River borders the City on the North and East; and that Fourche
"bottoms" bordered the City on the South; therefore, Highway 10/ Cantrell; Markham; Chenal
(when extended); Kanis and Colonel Glenn Road would be corridors for the growth of Little
Rock Westward. The City has historically allowed commercialization along these corridors, as
support for residential developments which, too, would grow Westward. Thus, in addition to the
already existing non -conforming commercial uses existing when that area was annexed to the
City, the City early on allowed commercial use growth along Highway 10/ Cantrell Road—and
the other mentioned corridors --and zoned the lands according, as development grew along that
highway. That's why your statement to me and Ms. Tucker today that the City "...didn't want so
much commercialization" was rather unseemly.
Ms. Tucker and I perceived early on the commercial potential of our land (as did other owners in
the area did regarding their lands), and held on to the land as an investment, and paid the ever
increasing taxes on our land. Many of the other owners along highway 10/Cantrell Road were
allowed by the City to rezone their respective properties as various classifications of commercial
uses (greater than suburban office) as buyers materialized. Frankly, we expect equal treatment
(equal protection of the law) in that regard. After all, state law provides that we are entitled to the
highest and best use/value of our lands. A classification of Suburban Office use is not the
highest and best use of our land, it's a severely limiting commercial use and a severe reduction
of its potential value. There is at least one such office development further down Cantrell, and it
appears to have a history of high vacancy. Further, there's a lot of competing long vacant office
space in downtown Little Rock.
I have reviewed a map created by the planning department which shows the zoning of the lands
surrounding our lands; and it reflects that nearby lands to the East are mostly zoned commercial;
and that lands across Highway 10/ Cantrell are some mixed commercial. I submit that any
razoring of our lands which is less than mixed commercial—especially if it were rezoned to "
suburban office", as your office proposes—would be arbitrary and an inverse condemnation of our
lands.
Thank you for your consideration of this objection to your office's proposed re -zoning. I would
like to be heard on this matter should your office elect to proceed on its proposed razoring of our
lands to suburban office.
Sincerely,
f �r
ILEANE TUCKER
14919 Cantrell Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
(501) 804-3378
October 21, 2009
City of Little Rock
Dept. of Planning & Development
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Attention: Eve Jorgenson
Re: LU09-02B, Transition to Suburban Office
parcel 43L0080004800 located at PT E 1/2
W1/2 W1/2 NE, NW BEG 180''E &428P N
OF SW COR NE NW N 333' 'TO S R/W
HWYSEONSR/W91'52998',W85'
TO PT BEG 19 2N 13W in Little Rock, Arkansas
The purpose of this letter is to reply to your letter of October 12, 2009 and to express my opposition to the
proposed zoning of my above captioned property by the Little Rock Planning & Development
Department to the classification of Suburban Office. Since my objections are the same as those by Mr.
Tucker, nevertheless, I repeat them here.
Your letter states : "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" is very disturbing; and I
disagree ; and, apparently the planning department's proposed classification is based upon that
assumption. That is quite disturbing to me for several reasons. I know that some of the residents of
Westchester subdivision have made their desires known to the planning department, but I'm unaware that
their view is held by all residents.
To begin with, Mr. Tucker and I, and other longtime land owners in the area, were tolerant of the
developer's creation of that anomaly in the area (at least until the developer and his contractor removed
our back fence and ran and parked his equipment on our property and used our property as their toilet).
We certainly were there long before those residences. The City at the time apparently considered that
a tall board fence around the development to be a sufficient buffer against the surrounding properties,
together with its ingress and egress to be from Taylor Loop Road.
The City knew from the early 80s (and earlier) that the growth area for Little Rock had to be Westward
because the Arkansas River borders the City on the North and East; and that Fourche "bottoms" bordered
the City on the South; therefore, Highway 10/ Cantrell; Markham; Chenal (when extended); Kanis and
Colonel Glenn Road would be corridors for the growth of Little Rock Westward. The City has historically
allowed commercialization along these corridors, as support for residential developments which, too,
would grow Westward. Thus, in addition to the already existing non -conforming commercial uses
existing when that area was annexed to theCity, the City early on allowed commercial use growth along
Highway 10/ Cantrell Road -and the other mentioned corridors --and zoned the lands according, as
development grew along that highway. That's why your statement to me and Mr. Tucker today that the
City "...didn't want so much commercialization" was rather unseemly.
I have reviewed a map created by the planning department which shows the zoning of the lands
surrounding our lands; and it reflects that nearby lands to the East are mostly zoned commercial;
and that lands across Highway 10/ Cantrell are some mixed commercial. I submit that any
razoring of our lands which is less than mixed commercial -especially if it were rezoned to "suburban
office", as your office proposes -would be arbitrary and an inverse condemnation of our
lands.
Thank you for your consideration of this objection to your office's proposed re -zoning. I would
like to be heard on this matter should your office elect to proceed on its proposed razoring of our
lands to suburban office.
Sincerely,
Ileane Tucker