HomeMy WebLinkAboutletter from applicant on application05/26/2004 12:28 501-654-2527 DOUGLAS 5 ROBERTSON
WHISENHUNT INVESTMENTS
1563 Ranch Road
Bee Branch, Arkansas 72013
Douglas S. Roberman
sol Ranch Road
Hee Branch, Arkansas 72013
'Cel: (501) 654-2527
Fax: (501) 654-2827
VIA, FAC9INME TO: (501) 399-3435
May 26, 2004
Mr, Brian Vinyard, Planner
Dept. of .Planning 8r Development
City of Little Rock
723 W. Markham, Room 203
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Proposed ar mdm.ent of Master Strcct Plan (".MSP") / Wellington Hills and Kanns Roads
Mr, Minyard:
PAGE 01
RECEIVE. -.7.
MAY 2 6 2004
BY:
;Z`6
Please disregard our (1)(Ts) letter regarding the modification of the design standards / specifications for a minor
arterial five lane w/o hike lane. We will stick with the desip. standards / specifications for a minor arterial five
lane wlu hike lane as already set forth in the MSP,
Please note however, flint we are asking, in our proposed MSP amendment, for a minor arterial f ve lane w/o bike
lane as the design standard for both (a) Wellington Hills Road from Chenal Parkway southwards to Karns Road
and (b) Kanis Road from the eastam intersection of Karns Road and Chenal Parkway eastwards to the west end of
the Rock Creek bridge, As ,you know, LRC) 17,9$8 sets forth a different design standard (4 lane w/ 14' median)
for the segment of Kods / Wellington 1 -fills upon which our proposed MSP amendment is focused. So, we need
to be sore that the design standard in our proposed MSP amendment is minor arterialfive ve lane wio bike lane.
The drawing that we (DCI) submitted with our application for the amendment of the MSP was meant to be of a
general nature, showing only (1) the street segments to be reclassified and their proposed classification (2) the
general alignment of tha Huts to be rwlassifiad and (3) the design standard (i.e., minor arterial five lane we&
bike law). we were not trying w sit fb h the specincc design for the streets. However, because of tbt drawing's
derail, it might appear that we were trying to sett forth specific stunt dusign(s).
ltr order to avoid confusion, I would ask That you disregard tho drawing we submitted with our Application for
amendment of the MSP and subsdtute therefor a more schematic streot drawing like the street drawings that the
Planning Dept would normally use for such an amendment of the MSP. Please share your drawing with Robert
91 own at DCI [(SO 1) 221-7880] to snake sure we are a)) on the same pagc.
Respectfully,
Douglas S. Rol
cc: Robed Broom, DCr