Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutletter from applicant on application June 13produksi J O V arsitektur textii fotoegrafi furnitl, r 2124 Rice Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72202-6150 USA Planet Earth tel. 001.1.501.374.4531, 952.5594 sale, sail, cell, sell, handphone, mobile, 374.1701 fax Kwendeche@sbcglobal.net, kwendeche_@hotmail.com Friday, June 13, 2008 Tony Bozynski Department of Planning and Development City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 re project: The Adaptive Re -Use of the James Mitchell School Land Use Amendment LU -08-08-01 Mr. Bozynski, As you might be aware, my client (Dr. George T. Blevins, Jr., Managing Member of the Mitchell Elementary LLC) submitted a rezoning application for the Adaptive Re -use of the James Mitchell School, on May 12, 2008 for a June 19, 2008 hearing before the Planning Commission. Shortly after the submission of the application, we were requested by the planning staff to also submit an application for a land use amendment for the same property. I consulted with my client and indicated that the requested change from PI to MX would actually enhance and best align with the future intended use of the property. There was also no need to consult back with the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association (WANA), as the change from PI to MX would not impact the MOU agreement between WANA and the Mitchell Elementary LLC. We submitted the application for the land use amendment on May 15, 2008, including the same legal description of the property as indicated on the rezoning application. A letter was received on May 19, 2008 from your department acknowledging receipt of the application, including the fact that the amendment would be heard at the same date / time as the rezoning application. The letter also encouraged that we contact the South End Neighborhood Developers Association and the South End Coalition, but not the Wright Avenue Neighborhood Association (WANA) — the association whose boundaries include the James Mitchell School. There was no indication on this letter about extending the land use amendment application boundaries to other properties outside of the Mitchell School legal description. We also did not see this oversight (not including WANA on this list to contact) as being significant, as WANA was fully aware of the intended re -use of the property, as agreed upon in a Memorandum of Understanding between Mitchell Elementary LLC and WANA. That specific MOU was included in both applications. produksi V Will, J O U Letter to Tony Bozynski, Land Use Amendement LU08-08-01, June 13, 2008 Apparently, a few days later, a property owner enquired at your department and was handed copies of our application and the supplemental land use amendment map. The property owner contacted WANA and was correctly informed that the only property being considered was the James Mitchell School property. WANA contacted me and I therein met with Eve Gieringer on Friday, June 6, 2008 to enquire about this apparent mistake. I was then told that, in fact, the City of Little Rock had arbitrarily added properties to our land use amendment application without notice to my client, nor to the other neighborhood associations. As a follow-up to my brief meeting with Ms. Gieringer and her subsequent fax, I have consulted with my client and we find it unacceptable to place additional properties onto our application for a land use amendment. We recognize that the City of Little Rock has in other cases, supplemented land use amendment applications with adjacent properties, however in this case; our objection is based on the fact that the property owners and the neighborhood associations encompassing these additional properties have not been properly notified or have had an opportunity to review the intended supplement to our application. Furthermore, if we had taken the opportunity to notify the two (2) organizations listed in the aforementioned letter, we would have not been providing them with complete and truthful information. In fact, unless the property owner who enquired about the POD application had not enquired, we (the applicant or their agent) would have been unaware of the supplemental property until the day of the hearing. Finally, I have reviewed the current write-up of the land use amendment analysis by staff and notwithstanding the stated rationale; notices were not sent out to the South End Coalition or the South End Neighborhood Developers by the author of this letter, nor my client as written otherwise in the write-up. The overall presentation to the Planning Commissioners will incorrectly imply that my client has agreed with the intended changes to the land use of the properties being tagged onto the James Mitchell School property as if these properties have been fully reviewed and accepted by my client, WANA, and the other effected neighborhood associations. We have indicated our objections to this action in the June 11th letter to Ms. Gieringer and would request again that only the Mitchell School property (see June 19, 2008 application and legal description), as initially submitted for a land use amendment be heard before the Planning Commission. Yours truly, Kwendeche, AIA Cc: Mitchell Elementary, LLC