HomeMy WebLinkAboutEmail Correspondence Staff and Opposers 051220Moore, Monte
From:
Herndon, Tim
Sent:
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 5:16 PM
To:
'Edward Moody'
Cc:
Moore, Monte
Subject:
RE: Cantrell West Restaurant Center
Hi Mr. Moody. Sorry it took me this long to respond; I was out of the office the entire previous week and yesterday,
while moving to Little rock from out of state. Per conversations with fellow staff, I understand your concerns have been
addressed. Please let me know if this isn't the case. Meanwhile best wishes in all things. - Tim
Tim A. Herndon, Development Manager
City of Little Rock I Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street I Little Rock, AR 72201
Main: (501)371-4790 1 Direct: (501)371-6817
Email: therndon@littlerock.pov
Website: https://www.littlerock.gov/
From: Edward Moody <emoody@edmoodylaw.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 1:48 PM
To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov>
Cc: rfstoker@earthlink.net
Subject: Cantrell West Restaurant Center
I live at 10 Thomas Park Circle west of the proposed rezoning site listed above. I agree with all of the objections to the
rezoning cited by my neighbors. Particularly the ingress and egress as related to Rummell Road. Rummel Road is not
suited for commercial taffic due to the sharp curve, lack of drainage, poor lighting and the heavy traffic in the morning
and afternoon. The proposed traffic on Rummell would make things a nightmare and dangerous. The planned rezoning
calls for too many buildings in such a small acreage with the incumbent roads, setbacks, parking etc. I am very opposed
to proposed project particularly the access to Rummell Road. Thank you.
Ed Moody
Edward O. Moody, P.A.
Attorneys at Law
801 West Fourth Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-376-0000 telephone
501-376-0546 facsimile
A'
Moore, Monte
From:
Herndon, Tim
Sent:
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 5:17 PM
To:
'Mickey'
Cc:
Moore, Monte
Subject:
RE: Z-5817-J
Hi Mickey. I'm sorry it took me this long to respond; I was out of the office the entire previous week and yesterday,
while moving to Little rock from out of state. Per conversations with fellow staff, I understand your concerns have been
addressed. Please let me know if this isn't the case. Meanwhile best wishes in all things. - Tim
Tim A. Herndon, Development Manager
City of Little Rock I Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street I Little Rock, AR 72201
Main: (501)371-4790 1 Direct: (501)371-6817
Email: therndon@littlerock.gov
Website: https://www.littlerock.gov/
From: Mickey <mickey-thomas@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 12:54 PM
To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov>
Cc: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov>
Subject: Z-5817-J
Mr. Herndon:
As a long time resident of the Cantrell Road corridor and Rummell Road neighborhood, Thomas Park, I am opposed to
the proposed Z-5817-J.
The plans do not meet the zoning requirements established to encourage business growth and protect residential
safety. The required rezoning needed to allow this plan is another example of zone creep and in complete disregard for
the standards set after much research to ensure both business and residential needs are met.
Allowing business to enter/exit from a small, winding, sloped, neighborhood road is a huge concern. I have been driving
and/or cycling through the intersection of Rummell and Cantrell for 40 years....and routing additional traffic onto
Rummell in order to access Cantrell is poor planning ... no matter how you look at it. Rummel is a small neighborhood
road and was not designed to handle this traffic load or pattern. Exiting from Rummell to Cantrell gets more dangerous
each year, and this plan will only make it worse. Keep Rummell residential. And if a business "needs" to use Rummell, it
should be developed in one of the several nearby areas zone to meet those needs
This proposed plan does not adhere to the Highway 10 Scenic Corridor. This overlay plan was designed to allow business
development while protecting residential areas.
Moore, Monte
From: Herndon, Tim
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 5:20 PM
To: 'SHEPHERD, LANNY C'
Cc: Moore, Monte
Subject: RE: OPPOSED: Cantrell West Restaurant Center <> Planning Commission Meeting
5/14/20 - File Number: Z-5817-J Agenda Item: 13
Hi Lanny. Sorry it took me this long to respond; I was out of the office the entire previous week and yesterday, while
moving to Little rock from out of state. Per conversations with fellow staff, I understand your concerns have been
addressed; your emailed comments will be provided to the Planning Commission. Meanwhile best wishes in all things. -
Ti m
Tim A. Herndon, Development Manager
City of Little Rock I Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street I Little Rock, AR 72201
Main: (501)371-4790 1 Direct: (501)371-6817
Email: therndon@littlerock.gov
Website: htt-as://www.httlerock.gay/
From: SHEPHERD, LANNY C <ls6093@att.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 12:07 PM
To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov>; LRzoning <LRzoning@little rock.gov>
Subject: OPPOSED: Cantrell West Restaurant Center <> Planning Commission Meeting 5/14/20 - File Number: Z-5817-J
Agenda Item: 13
I am a home owner and resident of the in the Pinnacle Valley Neighborhood off of Rummel Road (I live on Eagle Glenn
Cv), and I am writing this email to document that I am highly against this proposed development northeast of the
intersection of Cantrell and Rummel roads in west Little Rock for a "Cantrell West Restaurant Center." Like me and
many of my neighbors, we travel Rummel Road several times a day and the traffic getting on/off of Cantrell will be
terrible if this developer is allowed to a "Restaurant Center" for drive through fast food in the planned location. There
are countless other places up/down Cantrell that are much more suited for this type development, some with existing
vacant space in old restaurant locations and/or commercial shopping type areas — not the entrance to a quiet
neighborhood with 50-60 houses that only have 1-way in/out (Rummel Road).
There are several reasons for me & my neighbors opposing this application:
1 This application proposes to change plot zoning to PD-C to allow 3 fast food restaurants with drive through
facilities. This would be a radical change from the current single family residential and quiet office zoning, and
create a major congestion area of people and cars where none currently.
2 1 realize there is already a restaurant adjacent to these lots (Tazikis), but 4 in a row is ridiculous for this type of
area when so many other areas that are already developed/cleared are available that are not part of this scenic
area. It would be much better to use this area quiet office facilities and smooth out the congestion over a wider
stretch of the Cantrell Scenic Corridor and reuse existing or vacant commercial locations more suitable for this
type development.
3 With respect to congestion, the Highway 10 Overlay District guidelines state that, for commercial zones, there
should be one building every two acres. This proposal would result in about one building every one acre. So,
even if zoning is changed to Commercial, the application is immediately in violation of the guidelines.
Moore, Monte
From:
Herndon, Tim
Sent:
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 5:21 PM
To:
'Celia Martin'
Cc:
Moore, Monte
Subject:
RE: Z-5814-J Cantrell West Restaurant Center
Hi Ms. Martin. Sorry it took me this long to respond; I was out of the office the entire previous week and yesterday,
while moving to Little rock from out of state. Per conversations with fellow staff, I understand your concerns have been
addressed; your emailed comments will be provided to the Planning Commission. Meanwhile best wishes in all things. -
Tim
Tim A. Herndon, Development Manager
City of Little Rock I Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street I Little Rock, AR 72201
Main: (501)371-4790 1 Direct: (501)371-6817
Email: therndon@littlerock.gov
Website: https://www.littlerock.gov/
From: Celia Martin <thecook7@att.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 12:00 PM
To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov>
Subject: Z-5814-J Cantrell West Restaurant Center
RE: Z-5814-J Cantrell West Restaurant Center
As 30 year residents of the Westchester Neighborhood we are opposed to this development on these grounds and
concern
• A commercial multi drive -through restaurant center does not fit the Land Use category of Suburban Office. Just
because another restaurant was allowed in this area does not negate the Land Use category for the
undeveloped lots. This Land Use is still shown on the current zoning maps.
• Hwy 10 Scenic Corridor Design Overlay District states among other purposes these things
"To allow land use patterns compatible with present and future traffic capacity for Highway 10."
"To minimize the number of curb cuts along Highway 10 so that the roadway will function at an efficient
level of service."
"To facilitate transition of areas from less to more intense land uses along Highway 20 without the
undesired effects of small lot strip development."
The Hwy 10 DOD requires 2 acres for a development. Even with variations allowed for a PCD 3 buildings on
approximately 3 acres far overreaches that requirement. Refer back to a proposal at the SE corner of Hwy 10
and Chennancaeu for a McDonald's that was denied because it was under a 2 acre lot size and because of traffic
volume even though there was a traffic signal that would help.
• This proposal has 2 entrances on Highway 10 that are less than 300 feet apart. Plus there is a proposed
entrance from Rummel Road .... a neighborhood road serving only about 60 homes. That makes Rummel Road an
additional entrance, also less that 300 feet from the western entrance on Highway 10.
• Safety of turning left into or out of this center is a traffic safety concern. Even though there is a center turn lane,
it is often difficult to turn left from any of the existing businesses. Outside the peak travel times, the speed of
traffic is a concern when trying to turn left and during peak travel time, it's even more of a risk.
■ Are there set back variances? How many other variances are being asked for?
Moore, Monte
From:
Herndon, Tim
Sent:
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 5:23 PM
To:
'Mei-Mei Brown'
Cc:
Moore, Monte
Subject:
RE: Proposed Development on Rummel & Cantrell Roads.
Hi Ms. Brown. Sorry it took me this long to respond to your more recent emailed note(s); I was out of the office the
entire previous week and yesterday, while moving to Little rock from out of state. Per conversations with fellow staff, I
understand your concerns have been addressed. Your emailed comments will be provided to the Planning
Commission. Meanwhile best wishes in all things. - Tim
Tim A. Herndon, Development Manager
City of Little Rock I Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street I Little Rock, AR 72201
Main: (501)371-4790 1 Direct: (501)371-6817
Email: therndon@littlerock.gov
Website: httys://www.littlerock.gov/
From: Mei-Mei Brown <mei_mei_k@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 11:34 AM
To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov>; LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov>
Subject: Proposed Development on Rummel & Cantrell Roads.
Good Afternoon Mr. Herndon and Staff,
I am writing in regards to the proposed development by Rees Commercial located on Rummel and Cantrell Roads. I and
several of my neighbors are strongly opposed to the approval of this application.
There are several reasons why the current application should not be approved.
Zoning
The current zoning for these parcels are R-2 and 0-1. The intensity of use and traffic to rezone this area to a Commercial
designation is far greater than what the zoning and proposed land use dictates. The use of not one, but three drive
through restaurants is a far overreach of the current zoning as it stands. It is imperative that the community is able to
rely on the consistency of the land use plan. The continuous effort to up -zone this area is in opposition to the intent of
having a land use plan at all. This application is trying to convert something that is intended for quiet office use to
something that is basically a drive through food court, which is a prime example of zoning creep.
In addition, the developer has stated that they do not yet know which businesses would be located there. This is a
substantial concern, seeing as how most fast food restaurants have extremely long hours, some even being open 24
hours. This is a substantial difference from what the likelihood of business hours would be for a small office.
Effects on the land
The effects of having three additional high traffic commercial areas would be detrimental to the already existing sewer
and waste systems in place. Having a small office use, as is what it should be, would be far less of a burden on the
current systems than what it proposed.
Moore, Monte
From:
Herndon, Tim
Sent:
Tuesday, May 12, 2020 5:25 PM
To:
'Grey Williams'
Cc:
Moore, Monte
Subject:
RE: item Z-5817-J
Hi Mr. Williams. Sorry it took me this long to respond; I was out of the office the entire previous week and yesterday,
while moving to Little rock from out of state. Per conversations with fellow staff, I understand your concerns have been
addressed; your emailed comments will be provided to the Planning Commission. Meanwhile best wishes in all things. -
Tim
Tim A. Herndon, Development Manager
City of Little Rock I Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street I Little Rock, AR 72201
Main: (501)371-4790 1 Direct: (501)371-6817
Email: therndon@littlerock.gov
Website: httpsalwww.littlerock.gov/
From: Grey Williams <wgreywilliams@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 8:48 AM
To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov>
Subject: item Z-5817-J
Tim- I am writing in reference to item Z-5817-J, currently slated for the May 14 meeting (as I understand it).
I have lived within 1/4 mile of the location in question for the past 28 years (hard to believe when I write it down like
that). My family and I are strongly opposed (as are all of the neighbors I have corresponded about this with). I am sure
you'll get several emails regarding this, but my particular reasons for opposition are:
- the proposed use is far too intensive for the site
- the traffic pattern, especially the access to Rummel Road, is highly dangerous and will also drive higher volumes onto a
residential street. This is basically 3 drive throughs with a primary access from a residential street.
- this property backs up to an area whose only possible use is residential
- there are numerous spaces within earshot of this location, owned by the same developer, that have been turned over
rapidly, some of which are currently empty. What makes us think they can make this one successful?
As you can tell, I have two fears here. One is that the property will be successful and make the Rummel Road entry
more dangerous for pedestrians and vehicular traffic (it's already dicey). The second is that this developer will once
again be unable to keep tenants and we will have yet more empty space, which leads to all kinds of deterioration and
risks and attracts the wrong kinds of attention.
Historically, the intent of the corridor was for there to be nothing of this sort west of Walgreens (approx 14700) all the
way out to where the Shell Station is (approx 15600 or so). New high -intensity development has been allowed to creep
in this direction and must be stopped somewhere.
I appreciate your consideration of these issues as you prepare your recommendation.
1