Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8165-A Application 2l G. AmuseMeR (Eliminated by Deltic wl original proposal) tobaego (Eliminated in Jan. 2009) 11 iii. Office equipment sales and service. jjj. Optical shop. kkk. Paint and wallpaper store. W. Par -king, nommerrial_lat E) garagemmm. Pawnshop, , nnn. Pet shop. 000. Photography studio. qqq., . sss. Retail uses not listed (enclosed). L'nl eel /eeff r..mial t«a.-ie ef af'ty vvy. School (public of denominational). www. Seasonal and temporary sales, outside. zzz. Shoe repair. aaaa. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors). cccc. Tailor. d.ldd- Taxidef fib eeee Taxi office. ce fff-f.- Theater- gggb' Teel and equipmei# f-ental (inside display orAy)-. hhhh. Travel bureau. (2) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: a. Ambulance service post. 1. A musemer.t commercial (outside). , e A..ute glass or m„ff7er slop d. Auto parts, sales with limited motor vehicle parts installation. i_ �Autor.�L14�or- leasing no soles or repair) , f Auto pair g arage- Cn' .- Building matei,ll sales (open 1, Car wash r'r atefi,,.... k. Glass or glazer. Installation, repair and sales. 11 ... in. Landscape service. n. Lawn and gar4ea open display. er-yn r� > T1 i�li fF&A,afeheuse DOCS-#798652-v1-Deltic_Metter to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC Ilf iee . feheuse s Plant nufserxr t. Service station with limited motor vehicle repair. v. Swimming peel sales and supply. s.v. 'T....1_:�_nriequipment rental (with outside display). �s leasingx. Truck or trailer rental er- v sales or repaio. y. Upholstery shop, furniture. shop, aa. Convenience food store with gas pumps. DOCS-#798652-v 1 -Deltic-_letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC I indicates Deltic has agreed to eliminate the use in Jan. 2009. EXHIBIT "B" Sec. 36-281. 0-3 general office district. (a) Purpose and intent. The 0-3 general office district is established to accommodate offices and associated administrative, executive and professional uses in new and existing structures together with specified institutional and accessory uses. This section applies to such district. The 0-3 district is characterized by freestanding buildings and ancillary parking, and shall be limited to arterial street locations in developed areas of the city and other carefully selected areas where public utilities, community facilities and other public services are adequate to support general office development. (b) Use regulations. (1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are as follows: a. Bank or savings and loan office. b. Church. c. Clinic (medical, dental or optical). • a a a• j. Duplication shop. 1. Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization. in. Family care facility. n. Fire station. o. Governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, day camps and passive recreational open space. r. Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use. v. Office (general or professional). w. Photography studio. adoeation-. (Moved to Conditional) y. Rooming, lodging and boarding facilities. z. School (business). (Moved to Conditional) bb. Studio (broadcasting and recording). cc. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors). DOC S-##798652-v 1-Deltic_Metter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor. DOC dd. Travel Bureau. (2) Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are permitted only in conjunction with an allowable use or uses in the 0-3 district and shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the total floor area on the site. a. Antique shop. b. Barber and beauty shop. c. Book and stationery store. d. Camera shop. -- max.;_ candy store. f. Clothing store. g. Custom sewing or millinery. h. Drugstore or pharmacy. i. Eating place without drive-in service. j. Florist shop. k. Health studio or spa. 1. Hobby shop. m. Jewelry store. n. Key shop. o. Laundry pickup station. p. Tailor shop. (3) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: a. Ambulance Service Post. b. Animal clinic (enclosed). c. Barber and beauty shops. e. Health studio or spa. f. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting. j. Orphanage. k. School (commercial, trade or craft). m. Private school, kindergarten or institution for special education. n. School (public or denominational). DOCS-#798652-v 1-Deltic_-_letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor. DOC Letters regarding Items B. LU08-19-02 and B.1 Z-8165-A Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: David Bell [dlbell@mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 9:09 PM To: Chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; Carney, Dana Cc: nancychuar@aol.com; Kellie Subject: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock RE: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little Rock, voter, and a resident of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision, which is adjacent to property that is currently involved in a zoning application. I have sent this same e-mail to the Little Rock Board of Directors, my Ward Representative, Michael Keck, and Little Rock Mayor Stodola. I am asking that you preserve the existingzoningand master street _plan in West Little Rock and _oppose _this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08- 1.9-02,_Z8165-A,_and MSP08-01. I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff's recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would further increase traffic through our neighborhood flowing north and south via Wellington Plantation Drive. If approved, these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values. I have respectfully requested that the Little Rock Board of Directors and my Ward Representative, Michael Keck, deny this zoning application and master street plan amendment. Best regards, David Bell Villages of Wellington Subdivision 1 Alton Lane Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 home: 951-5677 work: 604-3017 3/27/2009 Page 1 of 2 Carney, Dana From: Gaddy, Dana [GaddyDana@uams.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:30 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Letter to oppose Rahling Road land use and rezoning and MSP changes-LU-08-19-02, Z8165- A, and MSP08-01. Importance: High Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola: Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01. I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our neighborhood, which is already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our children and families walking to the pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking in the neighborhood. If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values. I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan amendment. Kindest Regards, Dana Gaddy, Ph.D. Associate Professor Physiology and Biophysics Orthopaedic Surgery University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences 4301 W. Markham, Slot 505 Little Rock, AR 72205 501-686-5918 FAX 501-686-8167 3/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the s 3/27/2009 Pagel of 2 Carney, Dana From: Suva, Larry J [SuvaLarryJ@uams.edu] Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:32 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: Opposition to LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01 Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola: Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01. I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our neighborhood, which is already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our children and families walking to the pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking in the neighborhood. If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values. I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan amendment. Kindest Regards, Larry J. Suva Ph.D. Director, Center for Orthopaedic Research Professor, Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery and Physiology and Biophysics UAMS College of Medicine University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences 4301 W. Markham St., Slot 644 Little Rock, AR 72205 suval_ar u_am_s._ed_u (501) 526-6110 (office) (501) 686-8987 (fax) Mww.cor.uams.edu 3/27/2009 Page 2 of 2 Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the s 3/27/2009 March 23, 2009 RE: LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01. Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola: You are called upon daily to balance the wants and needs of the people of Little Rock. My family appreciates you because we know your service to our city is not easy but it is important. Thank you for your dedicated public service and your thoughtful consideration of issues affecting the lives of so many. I am writing to voice my concern and to ask you to take action to preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock. My wife, son, and I live the Hillsborough subdivision. My family is asking you to oppose the application identified as LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSPO8-01. I am a life-long citizen of Little Rock and have lived in Hillsborough since 2001. It is a good neighborhood with a strong sense of community and cooperation. Our subdivision's park and pool --- the hub of so much of our residents' interaction with one another --- is in the direct path of these proposed changes. If granted, traffic would certainly multiply exponentially. This would introduce unnecessary threats to the safety of those who live, walk, jog and bike along these streets. It is no small thing that in a world where people are increasingly isolated this is a place where people get out into their yards and talk with one another. That is a good thing for our neighborhood and for our city as well. Please help us encourage the growth of that kind of community spirit while protecting the safety, ecological balance, and value upon which we based our decisions to make our homes in Hillsborough. We trust that you will make your decision with wisdom and courage. We respectfully ask that you deny this zoning application and amendment to the master street plan. Thank you for your consideration, Tim Jackson (Tracy & Sam) 13609 Abinger Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Montie Dillard [msdillard44@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2009 11:22 AM To: board; Chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; Carney, Dana; Keck, Michael; Mayor Subject: Zoning Application LU-08-19-02; Z8165-A and MSP08-01 We are residents of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. We are STRONGLY OPPOSED to having the property rezoned or the master street plan changed. Changing the zoning of this adjacent property will affect our quality of life and the value of our property. The Planning and Zoning professional staff's recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". Our neighborhood has already seen an increase in traffic east and west on Wellington Village Road since it was connected with Kirk Road; the traffic coming from Fellowship Bible Church and from a multi family housing complex on Kirk Road. We relied on the City's compatible single family zoning (R-2) of the adjacent property when we purchased our home. We are asking you to preserve this zoning and master street plan for the property involved in this application. Sincerely, Don and Montie Dillard 2 Longwell Loop Little Rock, AR 72211 3/30/2009 Page 1 of 2 Carney, Dana From: William H. Benton MD [wbenton@anaxis.net] Sent: Sunday, March 29, 2009 11:57 PM To: board; Hurst, Stacy; Keck, Michael; Mayor; Carney, Dana; Chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com Cc: andy.lain@gmqrock.com; gaddydana@uams.edu; Jerry Straessle Memorandum From. William H. Benton MD 14001 Belle Pointe Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 To: Little Rock Board of Directors Mayor M. Stodola Little Rock Planning Commission Subject: Rahling Road Rezoning Amendments: Z-8165A LU-08-19-02 MSP-08-01 Requested Action: REJECT AMENDMENTS Rationale for requested action: 1. High Traffic: We are most concerned about the dramatic increase in the expected number of cars and potential traffic to the overall area, including residents along Rahling Road/Taylor Loop, Pebble Beach, Villages of Wellington, and all neighborhoods that feed into the Beckenham Drive collector street onto Hinson Road (including Hillsborough, Pleasant Ridge, the Pointe). This is unnecessary, unwise, and unwarranted based upon the original city plan, as indicated by Planning Staff. We hope that you will maintain the current land use/zoning plan. The traffic study that was presented was paid for by Deltic Timber, and only took into account their proposed plan, and did not take into account the increased traffic expected from the fully functional Promenade at Chenal. Once that happens, traffic will increase still further. Thus, the projected traffic impact has been underestimated. The Pebble Beach community is against the proposed changes because although their traffic will be somewhat alleviated, if the overall net increase due to the changed zoning/land use is more than four fold, a 50% decrease of a 4X increase is still a 2X increase.... and, as one Pebble Beach resident stated in his opposing remarks on October 2, the increase is not worth it to them.Obviously, we have an early morning traffic problem from 7:15 to 8:15 when Pulaski Academy is in session that is bad enough without requiring a traffic light to handle Rahling Road traffic as well. 3. Hazards to Children: Given the fact that our pool and that of the Villages of Wellington are both on the street that would have this 4X increase in traffic (without sidewalks), the land use and zoning changes represent serious traffic and safety hazards in both neighborhoods. 4. Crime: Our concern that the proposed zoning/ land use changes will result in significant increases in criminal activity in our neighborhood due to increased multi -family housing (MF 18), as has already taken place in the Villages of Wellington streets that back up to the MF 18 housing editions that were recently opened on Rahling Road, as well as in our own Hillsborough 3/30/2009 Page 2 of 2 neighborhood. This has already increased need for alarm systems, locking doors and garages during the day. 5. Un-needed Additional Commercial Property: West Little Rock is already over -built with alarmingly high vacancies in office and commercial building space in areas surrounding our neighborhood. The recent closing of Circuit City, Linens N Things, CompUSA, and David Claiborne, as well as the large numbers of vacancies in the new Promenade at Chenal strongly support Planning Staff s position that the proposed re -zoning of our residential neighborhood is completely unwarranted. 6. Consistent with LRP Staff Conclusions: The Little Rock Planning Staffs position of denial of the proposed amendments (Z-8165-A, LU-08-19-02, MSP-08-01) is well established based on existing zoning, land use and street traffic. It has consistently been their professional opinion that the existing City Plan is appropriate, and that the proposed amendments should be denied. 7. Property Values: If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values. 8. Increased Liability/Legal: Given the above data, malevents will result, in -line with the above 1-7. Residents who have been materially, directly or indirectly and negatively impacted will likely seek remedies through the courts. It is possible for citizens to exercise their individual or collective legal right to file suit in -kind based on these considerations so as to injunct zoning changes so as to prevent 1-7 above. Personal comment: I am a citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. There is a trust between citizens and their governing bodies - such as this residential community and this city government. The tax base depends on such areas remaining intact. Post -facto manipulation of zones undermines property values, taxation and trust. Citizens invest heavily into their homes and communities and it is not reasonable to respond to commercial interests over those of bona -fide, long term stake holders in this community: it's citizens - who respect each other, obey the law and pay their taxes. It is, therefore, the expectation. that the City will respect this relationship in -kind as reflected the above specified facts. I respectfully request that this zoning application and master street plan amendment be rejected. Thank you for your outstanding public service to the people of the City of Little Rock. Very Respectfully submitted, William H. Benton NM 3/30/2009 March 27, 2009 The Honorable Chauncey Taylor, Chairman & Members of the Little Rock Planning Commission City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Chairman Taylor and Commission Members: My name is Bill Corley and I am a resident of the Villages of Wellington subdivision, and I want to thank you for all your hard work which you give so graciously to the citizens of Little Rock with little recognition. I know it is a difficult job at times and I know you must be torn often between interests of developers and those of neighborhoods like ours. My purpose for this letter is to oppose the rezoning of Rahling Road as outlined in Z-8165-A and LU08- 19-02. When we bought our homes, we bought them under the assumption much of that area in question would remain zoned for R-2 development. While I understand Deltic can make more money rezoning that area as Office and Commercial space, on the other hand it will cause our citizen's homes to decline in value and result in us losing nione . As best I can tell, our single community with 600 homes pay some $1,800,000 in annual property taxes. That combined with the Hillsborough subdivision and 2 other subdivisions it approaches some $3 million or more in property taxes each year. From every appearance Deltic has requested change after change and bombarded your commission with so many changes and requests, frankly I do not know how you can keep up with it all and I think that may have been a factor in the commission denying their total request on February 5`h. While Deltic and the City Attorney seem to think you and the commission were unclear as to what you were voting on, I ,as do the other members of our community, object to those assumptions and feel you and the commission were perfectly within your rights to reject the entire project. The folks from Wellington Colony whom I have spoken with and the 100 plus who have signed petitions and mailed letters in opposition, support the Planning Commission denial and feel you should have the ability to act as an independent body and not have restrictions placed on your deliberations. I am under the impression individuals representing Deltic, have given the commission the impression they have worked out all the changes with the communities surrounding the rezoned area and that could not be further from the truth. We are currently attempting to set up a meeting with them and their attorney, even though past meeting with some individuals resulted in Deltic simply saying something to the affect. "that is not up for discussion ......... or "there is no give on that issue". Our concerns are simple: 1) increased traffic flow on streets not equipped to handle it, 2) safety of our children who are able to walk to the pool and recreation area as they do at present, 3) safety from a crime stand point as more high density population moves into the area, 4) Noise and light level will increase dramatically, 5) large numbers of MF housing already exists surrounding Wellington Colony now with none of them at full capacity -some even offering 2 months free rent, 6) Currently there are a large number of vacant commercial properties on Rahling Road and Chenal at Rahling-we do not need more, 7) single family homes in our subdivisions are still moving and new homes are still being built in our areas -why build more office, commercial and MF housing. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, thank you again for taking time to hear our concerns with the current rezoning request for Rahling Road. We would prefer that the original street tan with a higher level of R-t housing not be changed to ❑ or MF to maintain the integrity of our neighborhoods and the safety of our children. Kindest regards Bill Corley, March 31, 2009 Little Rock Planning Commission Members City Hall, Room 203 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock & Oppose Zoning Application LLB-08-19-02; Z8165-A and MSP08-01. Dear Planning Commission Members: Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Villages of Wellington Subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. I am asking that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-42, Z8165-A, and MSP48-01. Originally, this 127-acre property was zoned 107 acres for R-2 with only a smaller 20 acre section of MF-18 primarily located on or very close to Rahling Rd. Now Deltic wants to push 14 acres of MF-18 very close to Villages of Wellington and add 20 acres of Commercial & 25 acres of Office. This proposal cannot be allowed to be "pushed" closer to our single-family homes and start to destroy in value what we have tried to maintain. We are already being damaged by the economy and this proposal would further add continual devaluation. Please understand. I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff's recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would further increase traffic through our neighborhood flowing north and south via Wellington Plantation Drive. If approved, these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values. Please understand that we solely relied on the Gity's compatible single family zoning (R-2) of the adjacent property when we purchased our home on Wellington Plantation Dr. Acceptance of this proposed application would significantly decrease our property value due to its proximity and effects. I respectfully request that you DENY this zoning application and master street plan amendment. Sincerely, Jerry Leatherwood, P.E. & Karol Leatherwood 2120 Wellington Plantation Dr. Little Rock, AR 72211 501-228-4540 March 23, 2009 Little Rock Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola City Hall, Room 203 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola: Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01. I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". . The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our neighborhood, which is already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our children and families walking to the pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking in the neighborhood. If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values. I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan amendment. Kindest Regards, _�_5Z, «D 6-"f IXI zrz�` �y)c�, CAL 7 To: The Little Rock Mayor, City Directors, and the Planning Commission: From: The residents of Hillsborough and the Hillsborough Property Owners Association Re: Rahling Road Rezoning Amendments: Z-8165-A, LU-08-19-02, MSP-08-01 ortunit to hear the concerns of the tax -paying residents of this Little Rock Thank you for the opp Y community.We are hyping you will weigh the needs of our community and support the Little Roc Planning Staffs position of denial of the proposed as necessary amendments n raga dig stsngP- 08-01). The Staff has worked diligently t gather zoning, land use and street traffic. it has consistently beamendmeen their rnts ofessiona should berdeniedat the existing City Plan is appropriate, an that the proposed The rationale for our opposition is enumerated below: increase in the execed number of cars and 1. We are most concerned about the dramatic rsidents along RahlingtRoad/Taylor Loop, Pebble potential traffic to the overall area, including Beach, Villages of Wellington, and all neighborhoods that feed into the Beckenham Drive his is collector street onto Hinson Road (including Hillsborough, Pleas ant Ria9eashicdicat d by unnecessary, unwise, and unwarranted based upon the original city p Planning Staff. We hope that you will maintain the current land uselzoning plan. only took into 2. The traffic study that was presented was paid ntthe ir by ncreased tic traffic expected from the fully tit their proposed plan, and did not take into traffic will increase still further. Thus, the functional Promenade at Chenal. Once that happens, is projected traffic impact has been untieheifi nat ¢will be The Pebble Beach etommuni the agvernst the proposed changes because although increase due to the changed zoninglland use is as one Pebble ore than fou Beach resider , a 50% decrease of stated in his opposing4 increase is still a 2X increase.. ..and, remarks on October 2, the increase is not worth it to them. ington are both on the street3.Given the fact that our pool and that of Villages of Well the land use and zoning angesat would have this 4iC increase m traffic represent serious traffic and safety hazards in both neighborhoods. 4. Obviously, we have an early morning traffic eiproltraffi� fight to handle Rohl ng Road trafficasY is in session that is bad enough without q 9 a well. 5. Our concern That the proposed zoning) land use changesmulti-family lll result in significant housing �MF18} as has es in criminal activity in our neighborhood due t already taken place in the Villages ened of Wellington streets that back up n Rahling Road as well as in our own Hillsborough housing editions that were recently op eed for alarm systems, locking doves an garages neighborhood. This has already increased n during the day. 6. West Little Rock is already aver -built withThe r�C�pt closing of es in � Circuce it City,L eirais building space in areas surrounding our neighborhood. N Things, Cornpt]5A, and David GI art Planning 5taffsborne, as well as hposat on that the proposed re-zon ng of rge numbers of vacancies in the w Promenade at Chenal strongly support our residential neighborhood is completely unwarranted. Thank you for taking the time to consider our concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely yours, I_41.41_s_rt�.i �!' Ia'24-", March 23, 2009 Little Rock Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola City Hall, Room 203 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola: Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Pleasant Heights subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01. I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our neighborhood, which is already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our children and families walking to the pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking in the neighborhood. If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values. I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan amendment. Kindest Regards, Page 1 of 1 Bozynski, Tony From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 3:21 PM To: Carney, Dana; Bozynski, Tony Subject: FW: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock Please forward to the Planning Commission. Thanks, Frederick Gentry Assistant to the Board of Directors City of Little Rock 371-6801 500 West Markham Room 203 From: Patty Wingfield [mailto:plwingfield@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 10:42 AM To: board Subject: Preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock Dear Mayor Stodola and Board of Directors" Thank you all for your public service to the City of Little Rock. I live in the Villages of Wellington Subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. I am asking that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and OPPOSE this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01. I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff's recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". We built our new home in the Villages of Wellington because of the neighborhood amenities —pool, park, green spaces, sidewalks, and playground —to name a few. The diversion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation Drive instead of Rahling Road as on the existing master street plan would increase the traffic through our neighborhood. This would then cause many negative changes (increased traffic, noise, and light pollution) and would decrease our quality of life as well as our property values. I respectfully request that you DENY this zoning application and master street plan amendment. Thank you for your consideration. Patty Wingfield #6 Tory Court Little Rock, AR 4/1/2009 March 23, 2009 Little Rock Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola City Hall, Room 203 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Dear Planning Commission, Board of Directors & Mayor Stodola: Thank you for your public service to the City of Little Rock and its citizens. I am a citizen of Little Rock and a resident of the Hillsborough subdivision, which is adjacent to the property involved in this zoning application. I am writing to ask that you preserve the existing zoning and master street plan in West Little Rock and oppose this application to rezone and change the master street plan identified as LU-08-19-02, Z8165-A, and MSP08-01. I concur with the Planning and Zoning professional staff s recommendation to deny this application stating "development of this area as something other than its current zoning of single family residential would introduce a level of traffic, noise, and light which would be detrimental to the existing adjacent single family neighborhoods". The diversion of the westernmost portion of Beckenham Drive to connect to Wellington Plantation Drive (vs. Rahling Road), would dramatically increase traffic through our neighborhood, which is already difficult in the mornings trying to exit our neighborhood onto Hinson Road during the Pulaski Academy morning drop-offs. Moreover, the increased traffic will seriously risk the safety of our children and families walking to the pool on Beckenham Drive, as well as walking, jogging, and biking in the neighborhood. If approved these zoning and master street plan changes would dramatically increase traffic, noise and light pollution that would threaten the stability of our neighborhood. The significant rise in traffic and number of non-residents moving through our neighborhood would increase the incidence of crime and create safety hazards for our families and children. These negative changes would decrease our quality of life and property values. I respectfully request that you deny this zoning application and master street plan amendment. Kindest Regards, Peter and Dale Fiske 13815 Abinger Court Little Rock, AR 72212 228-1033 dbandpb@sbeglobal.net ITEM B.1. EDWARD L. WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913 - 1991) ALSTON JENNINGS (1917-2004) JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. ROGER A, GLASGOW ALSTON JENNINGS, JR. JOHN R. TISDALE JOHN WILL I AM SPIVEY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M. NORTON CHARLES T. COLEMAN EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR, GREGORY T, JON ES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SI MMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX. JR. TROY A, PRICE KATHRYN A. PRYOR 1. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK JERRY 1, SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER KYLE R. WILSON WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 • FAX (501) 376-9442 903 NORTH 47TH STREET, SUITE 101 ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756 (479) 986-0888 • FAX (479) 986-8932 www.wlj.com Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310 jspivey@wlj.com Reply to Little Rock Office January 28, 2009 Honorable Chauncey Taylor, Chairman Members of Little Rock Planning Commission City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Item Nos. LU08-19-02; Z8165-A and MSP08-01 Dear Chairman Taylor and Members of the Commission: PAGES C. TAD BOHANNON J. CHARLES DOUG14ERTY M. SPAN HATCH J. ANDREW VINES MICHELLE M. KAEMMERLING SC OTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D. WILSON DAVID P. GLOVER REGINA A. YOUNG PA UL D, MORRIS DA VID E. JOHNSON P- DELANNA PADILLA EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG CALEY B. VO GARY D. MARTS, JR. ERIC BERGER JOH NATHAN D. HORTON KATHRYN M. IRBY JEFFREY D. WOOD BRIAN 1. McNAMARA CHESTER H- LA UCK, III JANE A. KIM ADRIENNE L. JUNG KRISTEN A. SLUYTER ERIN S. BROGDON OF COUNSEL RONALD A. MAY ISAAC A. SCOTT. JR. BRUCE R. LINDSEY CHARLES C. PRICE JUDY ROBINSON WILBER LAMES R: VAN DOVER ELGIN R. CLEMONS, JR. CHARLES S. BOHANNON Hand Delivery We are attorneys for the Applicants ("Applicant") in connection with the above identified items and we are contacting you today on their behalf. At the October 2, 2008, Regular Meeting of Little Rock Planning Commission, the above identified items were presented for your consideration. All three items were approved by a majority of the Commission. Subsequent to Commission approval, and following continuing discussions with members of various property owners' associations and individual residents, Items Z-8165-A and Item LU08-19-02 were referred back to the Commission, at the request of the Applicant, by the City Board of Directors for consideration of an amendment to the pending application. In short, the amendment requests revision of the currently approved "MF 18" zoning for the approximate 20 acre tract in the northern portion of the overall 134 acre parcel to an "0-3" designation. This matter was scheduled to come before the Commission at its meeting on December 18, 2008, however the Applicant sought and received approval for deferral when it learned that only seven members of the Commission would attend the December 8, 2008 meeting. Prior to the December 8, 2008 meeting, and in the weeks since that time, the Applicant has continued its discussions with members of the nearby neighborhoods and, more specifically, the Chenal Ridge Property Owner's Association ("CRPOA"), and has reached a set of ITEM A. (LU08-19-02) ITEM A.1 (Z-8165-A) EAST SIDE OF RAHLING ROAD, SOUTH OF PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE Letters of Opposition And Information from Applicant Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:54 AM To: Carney, Dana Subject: FW: Please Vote No on LU08-19-02, Z-8165-A, & MSP08-01 Frederick Gentry Assistant to the Board of Directors City of Little Rock 371-6801 500 West Markham Room 203 From: Jeff & Caroline Cook [mailto:cj.cook@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 11:20 AM To: board Subject: Please Vote No on LU08-19-02, Z-8165-A, & MSP08-01 Greetings. I am sending this note to encourage you to oppose the above zoning requests that are up for consideration tonight. My residence is directly adjacent to the property involved in this zoning request. I oppose this request because it would have a very negative impact on residents of the Villages of Wellington and Pebble Beach. It would dramatically increase traffic flow both to the businesses and multi family dwellings that would be built and through traffic that would endanger the children in our neighborhoods. The close proximity of this type of development to our residences would also significantly reduce the value and desirability of our significant investments in our residences at a time when the economy is already depressing home values. Further, this area of West Little Rock already has a large number of multi -family developments and does not need the many additional units that would be developed on this property. The developers desire for profit do not justify destroying our neighborhoods and endangering our children with the heavy traffic that would result from approval of this zoning request. Therefore, I sincerely request that you oppose the above zoning requests. Best Regards, Jeff Cook 10/2/2008 Pagel of 2 Carney, Dana From: Jeff Yates [JYates@irwinpartners.com] Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:18 AM To: Larry Johnson Cc: James, Donna; Carney, Dana Subject: RE: West Little Rock zoning issues Dr. Johnson, Thank you for your note. I appreciate your comments and hope that you will attend the Public Hearing Thursday afternoon. Best Regards, Jeff Yates From: Larry Johnson [ma ilto: lejmvb@att. net] Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 6:57 PM To: Jeff Yates Subject: West Little Rock zoning issues 28 September 2008 Dear Mr. Yates: As a homeowner living near Rahling Road in west Little Rock, I want to oppose the re -zoning request (Z-8165-A) and land use amendment (LU08-19-2) to be changed from R-2. The traffic on Rahling Road is increasing (in fact, the speed limit had to be increased to 45 MPH because no one was driving at 35mph!). Changing the housing to apartment houses, adding commercial strip malls (do we really need more??) because the developer (who certainly does not live in this area) wants to increase his profit, to the deterioration of the residents who already live here, is not acceptable. Soon the forest on both sides of Rahling Road will be clearcut, destroying our environment, increasing pollution. Adding high density housing will further decrease the quality of our neighborhood and potentially increase crime. You are already aware of the high traffic volume on Pebble Beach —fortunately the stop signs and speed bumps have made the area quieter and safer —I have been passed by other cars in this area at rush hour so that parents can speed to PA prior to these measures. You may be forced to add stop lights at considerable expense, again wasting more taxpayer money. So as a homeowner and tax payer and citizen, I request that the zoning request be denied. Sincerely, 9/30/2008 Page 2 of 2 Larry E. Johnson MD, PhD 44 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 501-224-6398 9/30/2008 Page 1 of 1 Moore, Monte From: Jeff Yates [JYates@irwinpartners.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 2:44 PM To: Delbert Vanlandingham Cc: Moore, Monte; Carney, Dana Subject: RE: Land Use Amendment LU08-19-2 and rezoning request Z-8165-A Mr. Vanlandingham, Thank you for taking the time to write. I hope that you can attend the Public Hearing on October 2nd at 4:00 PM. Meeting information is available by calling 371-4790. Sincerely, Jeff Yates From: Delbert Vanlandingham [mailto:drvan38@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 9:24 PM To: jtferstl@comcast.net; wfr@ipa.net; Ihargraves@Iittlerockchamber.com; lahaengrls@sbcglobal.net; obray@aol.com; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; williams4850@sbcglobal.net; Jeff Yates Subject: Land Use Amendment LU08-19-2 and rezoning request Z-8165-A I, Delbert Vanlandingham, a resident of Little Rock at 18 Ledgelawn Drive in the Chenal Ridge Subdivision, do not want the above property to be changed from R-2 Zoning. The additional volume of vehicles will effect my neighborhood as well as the overall appearance of an area zoned R-2 and always meant to be residential becoming a commercial, office, and multi -family district. I object to the above land use and zoning change. Delbert & Helen Vanlandingham 18 Ledgelawn Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ph. 501-225-6849 Cell 501-680-2478 10/1 /2008 Date: 10/1 /2008 To: Little Rock Planning Commission Board of Directors From: James C. Olmedo, III 301 Pebble Beach Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212 (501) 844-7293 (home) / (918) 586-7033 (office) jay.olmedo@morganstanley.com RE: Deltic Timber Corp. and Agar Shuffield Venture rezoning application for parts of Sections 30& 31, T-2-N, R-13-W. East of Rahling Road Dear Board of Directors, I am writing this letter to request your assistance regarding the application for rezoning submitted by Deltic Timber and Agar Shuffield. My home address in Little Rock is 301 Pebble Beach Drive. Please understand that while I accept the fact that development is important for the growth of the West Little Rock community, I am asking for your help to protect the rights of the landowners in our area. We are collectively facing a drastic change in the values of our properties with the application to construct M-18 and C-3 structures in our "backyard." With the real estate market already faced with significant illiquidity issues, this proposed change will ruin the well-being of many people who live adjacent to the Deltic property. We moved to 301 Pebble Beach Drive in June of 2005. Before we settled on this home, we conducted extensive due diligence to verify the deed restrictions and local covenants attached to the area. The property had a "park like" setting which included the peace and privacy that we all appreciate. Although we knew that the land directly adjacent to our property was in fact zoned R-2, a person at Deltic told me that there were no plans to develop this property due to a "capital gains tax issue" that prevented them from making a decision to sell. We felt assured that we would enjoy the benefits of the property but also understood that eventually the sites would be developed into single family homes. After living in this home for two wonderful years, my job transferred me and my Family to Tulsa. I was excited about the opportunity to sell this home, in which we had invested thousand of dollars since our purchase, for a small profit. We were assured by our realtor that the original asking price would "sell our house in a week." People were knocking down the doors to get a look inside our home. Many people were working on their financing and had our house on the top of their "favorites list." About a month after we listed our home the real estate "bubble" began to emerge. On top of that, an article ran on the front cover of the Democrat Gazette detailing the traffic problem on Pebble Beach Drive, including a picture of the west side of my yard. Obviously the interest in our home dropped. We were forced to dramatically drop the price of our home to generate further interest from prospects. 10/1 /2008 The buyers, once again, began to look at our home with the reduced price on the market. Even after Alltel announced their plans to reduce their headcount (3100 relocations in their staff) the traffic was flowing once again. Many people were committing to our house waiting for their own house to sell first. In April I got an offer that was close to what I was looking for, but I turned it down because the traffic was really picking up. We just knew we would sell soon! Then the sign was erected on the Deltic Timber property along Rahling road. The sign that in bold letters tells prospects that rezoning is in process for this property. The traffic STOPPED. No one was interested in looking at our home. We have now gone months since our last viewing. Some showings were actually cancelled because the buyer's realtor informed the prospects of the rezoning issue we are currently facing. My realtor followed up every showing since it has been listed, and until the last few months, after the rezoning sign was erected, no one had ever cancelled a showing. Of all the scheduled showings over the last few months, all three of them cancelled because of the rezoning project. We have now had our home listed for almost 18 months. I have decreased the price more than $80,000.00 off of the original list price and $160,000.00 off of the last appraised value. The real estate market of course caused much of this loss, but the rezoning prospects for Deltic have now killed any potential for me to sell my house. If this rezoning application is approved, I cannot imagine any further interest in the homes in our neighborhood, let alone my home. The real estate market will recover from its recent downturn. Home prices will rebound from their low levels seen over the past year. Little Rock's home prices will recover from the recent setbacks. Everyone will be well rewarded for their patience during a volatile real estate market. That is, everyone, except the community adjacent to the Deltic Timber property. We will not see our home values recover. The rules were changed for us. We will have commercial and apartment structures in our backyards. The traffic on Pebble Beach, already at an extreme level, will grow even more. There is no way we will be able to enjoy the peace and quietness in our neighborhood. You will see financial setbacks for many people living in this surrounding area. Home prices will decrease to levels well below the average prices in West Little Rock and even below the financial institution's principle balances. Hence, foreclosures in our neighborhood will rise. The last thing West Little Rock needs right now is more foreclosures to add to its portfolio of the lost dreams homeowners. Ironically, I am puzzled as to the reasoning behind the initiatives to rezone this property. I cannot imagine why any commercial building or residential building projects would be considered by any wise investor during these unprecedented times our economy is facing. I assume that the rezoning is being proposed to make the land more marketable in the future with no intension of building structures at this time. This means that Little Rock will not see tax revenues on new buildings for many years. Until the structures are erected, the land will have a stamp attached to it allowing for exploitation of the honest single homeowners in our community. In fact, if we only focused on the potential tax effects of this change, I would argue that you will see decreased tax revenue from decreased home values in the neighborhood adjacent to the Deltic land. The ONLY person who will profit from the "change of rules after the fact" is the corporation or entity who transacts the land deal. The MANY people who would be losing in this situation are the local homeowners, many of whom owned their land long before Rahling road was even on the map. 10/1 /2008 Our neighborhood's future is in your hands. We need you to act as our advocates. The real estate market is already facing unprecedented problems, and the last thing we need is for you to abandon us during this time. There is nothing but pain attached to this application. There will be losses for the homeowners in your community. There is nothing to be gained, but much to be lost for all or us. We ask you to please deny Deltic Timber and Agar Shuffield's request for this rezoning application. Please remind them that you are not willing to negotiate a request that will put your neighbors at risk. We all believe that you will do the right thing and not allow our rights to be taken from us. A growing community depends on your leadership. Don't let the greed of a few impede on the rights of your community. Please, think of us when you carefully review this application. Feel free to call or email me any time at the Sincerely yours, James C. Olmedo, III 10/1 /2008 Page 1 of 1 Moore, Monte From: Tim Daters [tdaters@whitedaters.com] Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 1:32 PM To: Moore, Monte; Bozynski, Tony; Carney, Dana Cc: 'Bill Spivey' Subject: Rahling Road Rezoning - Commercial Use Restrictions Monte, I have reviewed the uses allowable in C-3 zoning and have lined out those that I don't consider to be "Neighborhood Commercial" types of use. I have attempted to retain uses that residents who live in the surrounding neighborhoods would find convenient to have at this location. As we have said previously, we are open to suggestions on allowable uses and will agree to site plan review by staff and the Planning Commission on all commercial, office and multifamily projects. Please let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Thanks for your help. Tim Daters 10/1/2008 ITEM A.1 (Z-8165-A) PROPOSED REZONING EAST SIDE OF RAHLING ROAD, SOUTH OF PEBBLE BEACH DRIVE Janice Atterberry 2008 Sawgrass Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 501-227-0903 July 22, 2008 Mr. Monty Moore City Of Little Rock Planning Commission 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: File #LU08-19-02 Dear Mr. Moore: I live in the Pebble Beach area of west Little Rock, and have recently learned that the Little Rock Planning Comission is considering rezoning the property adjacent to the intersection of Pebble Beach and Rahling Road (from Pebble Beach Drive to the Village of Wellington neighborhood) to Multi -Family & Commercial. As a resident of this area, I do object to such rezoning. Please contact me if you have any questions about my opposition. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, l anice Atterberry Rahling Road rezoning request Page 1 of 3 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:15 PM To: Carney, Dana; James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road rezoning request Dana & Donna: I have been receiving a barrage of emails in the past 24 hours pertaining to the zoning issues out Rhaling Road and have been asked to forward them to you all so that the Planning Commission is aware of the opposition. Likewise if I receive any for it I will send those as well. I've been forwarding them to the Mayor and Board as well. Thanks, Frederick From: Mark.L.McCaslin@alltel.com [mailto: Mark. L.McCaslin@alltel.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 11:49 AM To: Gentry, Frederick; Dick.Y.Fletcher@alltel.com; djadcock@comcast.net Subject: RE: Rahling Road rezoning request Frederick - Can you make sure and copy dcarney@littlerock.org on any emails that you get? Thanks! From: Gentry, Frederick [mailto:fgentry@littlerock.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:51 PM To: Fletcher, Dick Y; board; Keck, Michael; Gene Fortson; djadcock@comcast.net Cc: Young, Wanda; O'Shea, Kathleen; Barnett, John; Barnes, Nicki S; Hensley, Sheila; Dodd, Nancy; Fletcher, Peggy; McCaslin, Mark L; Carter, Chuck; Franzetti, Jeffrey; Stockwell, Kara K; Joplin, Brandi N Subject: RE: Rahling Road rezoning request Dick. I have already forwarded your email to all of them. Thanks, Frederick Gentry Assistant to the Board of Directors City of Little Rock From: Dick.Y.Fletcher@alltel.com [mailto:Dick.Y.Fletcher@alltel.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:47 PM To: board; Keck, Michael; Gene Fortson; Gentry, Frederick; djadcock@comcast.net Cc: Wanda.Young@alltel.com; Kathleen.O'Shea@alltel.com; John.Barnett@alltel.com; Nicki.S.Barnes@alltel.com; Sheila.Hensley@alltel.com; Nancy.Dodd@alltel.com; Peggy. Fletcher@alltel.com; Mark. L.McCaslin@alltel.com; Chuck.Carter@alltel.com; Jeffrey. Franzetti@alltel.com; Kara.K.Stockwell@alltel.com; Brandi.N.Joplin@alltel.com 7/23/2008 Rahling Road rezoning request Page 1 of 1 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:25 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road rezoning request Importance: High From: Mark.L.McCaslin@alltel.com[mailto:Mark. L.McCaslin@alltel.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:59 AM To: board@lr.org; mkeck@lr.org Cc: Gentry, Frederick; gfortson@lr.org Subject: Rahling Road rezoning request Importance: High To the LR Board of Directors: I strongly oppose of the rezoning request by Deltic Timber on Rahling Rd, south of the Pebble Beach intersection, from Single Family to Multi -Family. Deltic Timber currently has the West side of Rahling zoned Multi -family and by rezoning the East side it would make Rahling Rd, almost all Multi -Family. This creates a huge concern for my family and I, as well as, many other residents in the area. File #LU08-19-02 On August 21st, I ask that you vote_AGAI_NST the rezoning on Rahling Rd. http-llwww.littlerock.org/City Departments/Pla nningAndDevelopment/MeetingAgenda. -19-02%20zone_.pdf Thank you, Mark McCaslin The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Alltel requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else 7/23/2008 Rahling Road rezoning request Page 1 of 2 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:25 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road rezoning request Importance: High From: Dick.Y.Fletcher@alltel.com [mailto:Dick.Y.Fletcher@alltel.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 12:35 PM To: board@lr.org; mkeck@lr.org; gfortson@lr.org; Gentry, Frederick; djadcock@comcast.net Cc: Wanda.Young@alltel.com; Kathleen.0'Shea@alltel.com; John.Barnett@alltel.com; Nicki.S.Barnes@alltel.com; Sheila.Hensley@alltel.com; Nancy. Dodd@alltel.com; Peggy. Fletcher@alltel.com; Mark. L.McCaslin@alltel.com; Chuck. Carter@alltel.com; Jeffrey.Franzetti@alltel.com; Kara. K.Stockwell@alltel.com; Brandi.N.Joplin@alltel.com Subject: Rahling Road rezoning request Importance: High To the LR Board of Directors , et al : My wife and I strongly oppose the rezoning request by Deltic Timber on the east side of Rahling Rd, south of the Pebble Beach intersection. This rezoning is totally unnecessary since; 1) there is already a significant amount of Multi -Family dwellings along Rahling Rd, 2) the largest shopping mall in the greater West Little Rock area sits at the intersection of Rahling and Chenal, AND 3) there is already significant MF-12 acreage on the West side of Rahling and North of Pebble Beach. If these new rezoning requests are approved, this will undoubtedly make this small area the most densely populated, congested and highly trafficked area in WLR. This creates a huge concern for my family and I, as well as, many other residents in the area, many of which I have copied on this e- mail . Such a rezoning will ultimately have a significant negative impact to the value of our properties. Home owners such as ourselves purchase our homes based on master plans laid out by our city planners. As a taxpayer and an long-time resident of Little Rock, I would hope we can continue to count on the planning process being something residents can rely on in their personal decision making process. File #LU08-19-02 On August 21st, I ask that you vote AGAINST the rezoning on Rahling Rd. 7/23/2008 Rahling Road rezoning request Page 2 of 2 http:t/www.littlerock.oralCity0epartments/PlanningAndDe►►eio�ment/Meetin A� -19-02YQ20zone.pdf We greatly appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, Dick & Peggy Fletcher 14 Lorian Drive 501-607-0140 The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Alltel requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else 7/23/2008 Page 1 of 2 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:25 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road Rezoning Requests From: Doncrow Crow [mailto:doncrow1936@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:21 PM To: Gentry, Frederick Subject: FW: Rahling Road Rezoning Requests I have a petition for signing, AGAINST this rezoning.I live @ 2106 Sawgrass Dr.I have around to my neighbors along Sawgrass Dr & no one want this rezoning!!!! This area di not need apts.My husband & I purchased this home 3-01 & love the woods behind our h We knew that some streets off Pebble Beach would one day be opened up.I checked witl city when we purchased our home about this. Please, get the word out. Our meeting is Thur.8-21 @ 4PM @ city hall, if not postpone again..... Thanks, Wanda Crow --- On Tue, 7/22/08, Mark.L.McCaslin@alltel.com <Mark L.Mc Caslin@allteL com> wrote: From: Mark.L.McCaslin@alltel.com <Mark.L.McCaslin@alltel.com> Subject: FW: Rahling Road Rezoning Requests To: nancys@wagnerindustries.com, doncrowl936@yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008, 4:20 PM Example of what needs to be sent to the board and the email addresses in the email below.... Also, I would recommend calling one or more board members. See link for each of their names and numbers: httt://www.littlerock.or4CityCommissions/Detaii.as xp ?ID=33 From: O'Shea, Kathleen Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:16 AM To: McCaslin, Mark L Subject: FW: Rahling Road Rezoning Requests FYI From: O'Shea, Kathleen Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 11:15 AM To: 'board@lr.org'; 'mkeck@lr,org' Cc: 'fgentry@littlerock.org'; 'gfortson@lr.org'; Alan Reese (oshea_reese@sbcglobal.net) 7/23/2008 Page 2 of 2 Subject: Rahling Road Rezoning Requests To the LR Board of Directors: Deltic Timber currently has two meetings scheduled to request rezoning of properties along Rahling Rd. One on P 7th to change the MF12 zoning of land on the West side of Rahling, North of Pebble Beach. The other is August 2 change the zoning from SF to MF on land on the East side of Rahling, South of Pebble Beach. I strongly oppose both of these rezoning requests. As a homeowner on Pebble Beach Dr, I'm already concerned about the amount of traffic speeding down my street drivers cut -through from Rahling Rd to Hinson. Other Pebble Beach homeowners and I have been working with th to find solutions to this problem, which will only escalate with the opening of the new mall at Rahling and Chenal P fall. The addition of multiple multi -family and commercial developments along Rahling Rd will bring even more trai further decline our already declining property values. I ask that you vote AGAINST both of these rezoning plans on Rahling Rd. Thank you. Kathleen O'Shea 149 Pebble Beach Dr. The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Alltel requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else 7/23/2008 Page 1 of 1 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:26 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: Development From: Eleanor Burress [mailto:eleanor@sellingLR.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:34 PM To: jtferstl@comcast.net; Ihargraves@Iittlerockchamber.com; obray@aol.com; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; jyates@irwinpartners.com; board Subject: Development Dear Planning Commission Members, I would like to express my strong opposition to Deltic Timber's proposal to rezone 94 acres on Rahling Road. A multi family complex of this size will have a devastating impact on traffic through the Pebble Beach neighborhood. The residents of the neighborhood have already brought current traffic issues to the attention of City officials. Although efforts made have improved the problems of high traffic count and excessive speed on Pebble Beach Dr., Ledgelawn Dr., and Patriot Dr. these efforts would not be effective in facing such a considerable rise in traffic brought on by the proposed development. A significant increase in traffic through the neighborhood will also have a strong negative impact on home values. It is my hope that the commission will give these issues significant consideration when hearing the the rezoning proposal from Deltic. Respectfully, ECeawor g"rress Crye-Leike Realtors Eleanor@SellingLR.com 501.773.1636 7/23/2008 Page 1 Of-2 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:26 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road Re -zoning Request by Deltic Timber From: bigshooter4@comcast.net[mailto:bigshooter4@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:00 PM To: board; Keck, Michael; Gene Fortson; Gentry, Frederick; djadcock@comcast.net cc: nancy.dodd@ailtel.com Subject: RE: Rahling Road Re -zoning Request by Deltic Timber Little Rock Board of Directors, s. My wife and I concur with the sentiments and request of Timber on the r stsideDick of Fletcher to OPPOSE the rezoning Beach mest of e sltic eet on. Their reasoning is Rahling Road, south of the Pebbleoppose this sound and we and several other families in this area very strongly pp potential action. As the Fletcher request indicates, To the LR Board of Directors , et al : My wife and I strongly oppose the rezoning request by Deltic Timber sn the east side of Rahling Rd, south of the Pebble Beach inter section.Th rezoning is totally unnecessary since; 1 there is already a significant amount of Multi -Family dwellings along Rahling Rd, 2 the largest shopping mall in the greater West Little Rock area sits at the intersection of Rahling and Chenal, AND 3) the re is already significant MF-12 acreage on the West side of Rahling and North of Pebble Beach. these new rezoning requests are approved, this will undoubtedly make this If t populated, congested and highly trafficked area small area the most densely pop in WLR. This creates a huge concern for my family and 1, a well as, many other residents in the area , many of which l have copied 7/23/2008 Page 2 of 2 mail . Such a rezoning will ultimately have a significant negative impact to the value of our proper ties. Home owners such as ourselves purchase our homes based on master plans laid out by our city planners. As a taxpayer and an long-time resident of Little Rock, I would hope we can continue to count on the planning process being something residents can rely on in their personal decision making process. File #LU08-19-02 On August 21st, I ask that you vote AGAINST the rezoning on Rahling Rd. http://www.11ittlerock.oralCityDeaartmentslPianningAndDevelopmentliVlee#ing_A+ _19-02!j620zone.pdf We would greatly appreciate your immediate attention to this matter, as well as your opposition to this unwarranted and detrimental rezoning request by Deltic Timber and the negative impact it would have on our neighborhood. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Dodd 6 Lorian Drive (501) 219-8708 7/23/2008 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:26 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road Rezoning Request -----Original Message ----- From: Wanda.You3ng(&ailtel.com[maitto:Wanda.Younst@alltel.coml Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 10:27 PM To: Keck, Michael; board; Gene Fortson Cc: paui.young(c)diilards.com; paulyoungl7()comcast.net Subject: Rahling Road Rezoning Request To the LR Board of Directors , et al : My husband and I strongly oppose the rezoning request by Deltic Timber on the east side of Rahling Rd, south of the Pebble Beach intersection. This rezoning is totally unnecessary since; 1) there is already a significant amount of Multi -Family dwellings along Rahling Rd, 2) the largest shopping mall in the greater West Little Rock area sits at the intersection of Rahling and Chenal, AND 3) there is already significant MF-12 acreage on the West side of Rahling and North of Pebble Beach. If these new rezoning requests are approved, this will undoubtedly make this small area the most densely populated, congested and highly trafficked area in WLR. This creates a huge concern for my family and I, as well as, many other residents in the area , many of which I have copied on this e-mail . Such a rezoning will ultimately have a significant negative impact to the value of our properties. Home owners such as ourselves purchase our homes based on master plans laid out by our city planners. As a taxpayer and an long-time resident of Little Rock, I would hope we can continue to count on the planning process being something residents can rely on in their personal decision making process. File #LU08-19-02 On August 21st, I ask that you vote AGAINST the rezoning on Rahling Rd. httn://www.littlerock. org/CityDepartm entslPlannin.AndDevelopment!MeetingAgendas/Agendas/P DFslIu08-19-02%20zone.pdf - <htt ://www.littierock.or /Cit De artments/Plannin AndDevelo ment/Meetin A endas/A endas/ PDFsllu08-19-02%20zone.Pdf> We greatly appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, Wanda and Paul Young 10 Banfield Lane Little Rock, AR 72212 501-225-5403 ALLTEL Wireless I Wanda Young, Director Interactive I p 501.905.5077 1 wand a. vounpRalitel.com File #LU08-19-02 Page 1 of 2 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:26 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: File #LU08-19-02 From: Nicki.S.Barnes@alltel.com[mailto:Nicki.S.Barnes@alltel.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 9:30 AM To: board; Keck, Michael; Gene Fortson; Gentry, Frederick; djadcock@comcast.net Subject: File #LU08-19-02 To the LR Board of Directors, et al : My husband and I strongly oppose the rezoning request by Deltic Timber on the east side of Rahling Rd, south of the Pebble Beach intersection. This rezoning is totally unnecessary since; 1) there is already a significant amount of Multi -Family dwellings along Rahling Rd, 2) the largest shopping mall in the greater West Little Rock area sits at the intersection of Rahling and Chenal, AND 3) there is already significant MF-12 acreage on the West side of Rahling and North of Pebble Beach. If these new rezoning requests are approved, this will undoubtedly make this small area the most densely populated, congested and highly trafficked area in WLR. This creates a huge concern for my family and I, as well as, many other residents in the area , many of which I have copied on this e-mail. Such a rezoning will ultimately have a significant negative impact to the value of our properties. Home owners such as ourselves purchase our homes based on master plans laid out by our city planners. As a taxpayer and an life -time resident of Little Rock, I would hope we can continue to count on the planning process being something residents can rely on in their personal decision making process. File #LU08-19-02. On August 21st, I ask that you vote AGAINST the rezoning on Rahling Rd. h p://www.littlerock.org/CitvDepartments/PlanningA,ndDev_elopmentlMeetingAgendas/Agef - 1.9-02%20zone.pdf We greatly appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, Keith & Nicki S. Barnes 202 Weston Court Little Rock, AR 72211 7/23/2008 Page 1 of 1 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:26 PM To: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rhaling Road From: David Means [mailto:dmeansi@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 10:46 AM To: board; Keck, Michael; gfortson@lr.org; Gentry, Frederick Cc: Mark.L.McCaslin@alItel.com Subject: Rhaling Road LR Board of Directors and others: My wife and I vehemently oppose the rezoning request proposed by Deltic Timber for the east side of Rhaling road, south of the Pebble Beach intersection. Should this proposal be approved, it will have a negative impact on property values and increase traffic counts in an already heavily traveled area. Given that an enormous shopping center is currently going in right up the street, opening this area to multi -family dwellings will surely create another planning fiasco like Green Mountain drive and Reservoir Rd. Deltic is trying to enhance their bottom line at the cost of your constituency. Please Vote AGAINST the rezoning of Rhaling Road. We certainly appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. David and Chandra Means 7/23/2008 page i of James, Donna �.— From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008 2:27 PM To: B. J. Wyrick (bj.wyrick@mail.state.ar.us), Brad H iazOrt ({ he@ rbx2644@aof?com}; Gene Fortson (deankumpuris@ailtei.net); Doris Wright, a (genefortson@comcast.net); JOB adoa� Mark (ms odol cock @comero k.org) ms odola@catlaw.com'; (krichardson@4ittlerock.org), 5 Michael Keck (mkeck@stvincenthealth.com); Stacy Hurst Cc: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road Rezoning Request From: Nancy Speer [mailto:20 an8 2@ fi P erindustries.corn] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, To: board Subject: Rahling Road Rezoning Request To the Little Rock Board of Directors I would like to express my opposition to the rezoning request by Deltic Timber on the cas t side of Rahling Road, south the Pebble Beach intersection from Single Family to Multi -Family. e site When I purch ased and commissioned my home to be built in 19997 lhome (and the n was predicated on the fact the land behind and surrounding my home 'vision was zoned Single family. In an effort to maintain 1 e t It would be subdivision) and all that are in this neighborhood . MooreoVeadjacent, g to Multi -family would detrimental to the value of our homes. ' 11 change the character and integrity of our already otect and value r r>tsht ga Ingle family dramatically g neighborhood in this entire area. Pleaseinvestments made to our property and homeowners so as to protect our significant s� pur oseful our home s. Know that we sincerely care that a "thoughtful" b�laved city of Little vision be realized when planning the growth of our dear an Rock. On August 20 I ask that you vote AGAINST the rezoning of the east side of Rahling Road, south of the Pebble Beach intersection. Sincerely yours, Nancy Smreker Speer 7/23/2008 Page 1 or 1 Lampkin, Janet M. From: Carney, Dana Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:41 AM To: Lampkin, Janet M. Subject: FW: Rhaling Road ----original Message ----- From: David Means [mailto:dmeansl@gmaii.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 200S 11:51 AM corn; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; obray@aol.com; To: Carney, Dana; chauncey.taylor@ce stI@cointeilergy- omcast net lhargraves@littlerockchamber.com, j cc: Mark.L.McCaslin@allteLcom; dick.y.fiecher@alltel'corn; Sheila.Hensley@alltel.com Subject: Rhaling Road LR Board of Directors and others: vehemently oppose the rezoning request proposed by 1]eas � be approved, pro° ed,eteast side of will have a My wife and I veh Y Rhaling road, south of the Pebble Beataintersection. ,ease aff`1� countds nl a already heavily traveled area. to negative impact on property values an in right u the street, opening this Given that an enormous shopping center is currently going g p 1 dwellings will surely create another planning fiasco like Green Mountain drive and multi-fa1n1 y Reservoir Rd. Please Vote AGAINST the rezoning of Rhaling Road. We certainly appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. David and Chandra Means 7/28/2008 City of Little Rock Planning Attn: Monty Moore File #LU08-19-02 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 July 25, 2008 Dear Sirs and/or Madams: ive and as ch My wife and 1, Linda and Robert 6e n�nrezonlive at ing of Rahel ngl Road proe Beach posed by Deltic Timber. like to express our strong opposition to tin already have a severe problem din excess traffic destr9ans children neighborhood.a d our esidentl ds rivers. The numerous safety concerns 9 hazards new mail opening at Rahling and Chenal is already a eit to even these. problems in our neighborhood, and allowing this rezoning will The second problem with rezoning is the fact that it is in essence an unapproved transfer of funds from the "equity accounts" oa homeowners will decrease theperty value account" of va value of homes n the areaDeltic n order Timber. approval of the rezoning proposal a great to increase the value of benefit pa fewchairmen iich anddthee stockholders injustice of hundreds of ❑ ned Little Rock residents for the benefit of s for isproperty that bed nonce would border onwe knew the e tumoral action on yaura company. We purchased part single family homes, and changing toward your fellow residents of Little Rock. We earnestly hope you will appreciate our issues facing us and our neighbors, resist the pressure from Deltic Timber and turn down this proposition. Sincerely, Robert J. Benning Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:07 AM To: Carney, Dana Cc: Gene Fortson (genefortson@comcast.net); Michael Keck (mkeck@stvincenthealth.com) Subject: FW: Rezoning on Rahling Road From: benningbob44@aol.com [mailto: ben ning bob44@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 10:12 AM To: board; Gene Fortson; Keck, Michael Subject: Rezoning on Rahling Road Members of the Little Rock Planning Commission: My wife and I, Linda and Robert Benning, live at 182 Pebble Beach Drive and as such would like to express our strong opposition to the rezoning of Rahling Road proposed by Deltic Timber. We already have a severe problem with excess traffic through our neighborhood, resulting in numerous safety concerns including hazards to pedestrians, children and resident drivers. The new mall opening at Rahling and Chenal is already going to add to these problems in our neighborhood, and allowing this rezoning will escalate them even further. The second problem with rezoning is the fact that it is in essence an unapproved transfer of funds from the "equity accounts" of area homeowners into the "property value account" of Deltic Timber. Approval of the rezoning proposal will decrease the value of homes in the area in order to increase the value of Deltic's property, which would be a great injustice to hundreds of Little Rock residents for the benefit of a few chairmen and the stockholders of a publicly owned company. We purchased this property because we knew the existing zoning ordinance was for single family homes, and changing that ordinance would border on immoral action on your part toward your fellow residents of Little Rock. We earnestly hope you will appreciate the position of us and our neighbors, resist the pressure from Deltic Timber and turn down this proposition. Sincerely, Robert J. Benning It's time to go back to school! Get the latest trends and gadgets that make the grade on AOL Shopping, :© 11: Page 1 of 2 Moore, Monte From: Jeff Yates [JYates@irwinpartners.com] Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:59 PM To: Sherrill Wise Cc: Carney, Dana; Moore, Monte Subject: RE: Deltic Timber's proposed property zoning request on Rahling Dear Mrs. Wise, Thank you for being involved and expressing your concerns. More participation makes for a more valuable process. I encourage you to attend the Public Hearing. Planning Staff can give you more information @ 371-4790. Thank you, Jeff Yates From: Sherrill Wise[mailto:Sherrill.Wise@dillards.com] Sent: Thu 8/21/2008 11:30 AM To: dcarney@littlerock.org; board@littlerock.org; jtferstl@comcast.net; Ihargraves@Iittlerockchamber.com; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; williams4850@sbcglobal.net; obray@aol.com; Jeff Yates; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; shurst@littlerock.org; mkeck@littlerock.org Subject: Deltic Timber's proposed property zoning request on Rahling Dear Little Rock Planning Commission and Little Rock Board of Directors: I am very concerned about Deltic Timber's proposed property zoning request on Rahling Road. I researched all nearby zonings before moving to Pebble Beach Woods, and relied upon them when I purchased my house on Dorado Beach. Changing the zoning of Deltic Timber's land on Rahling road from single family to multi -family, commercial and office is a major change that would negatively impact my neighborhood. At the time the land in question was annexed to the city, the owners could have designated it as high density, but they chose not to. There were many opportunities to change the zoning before all the growth happened in the area, but again, they chose not to. When the master street plan was formulated, it was undoubtedly taken into consideration that this area was going to be low -density residential, and the nearby streets were not designed for such a change. Had the area in question been zoned high -density residential, the master street plan would have been redesigned to reflect an anticipated dramatic increase in traffic. As it stands now, these streets as built cannot handle the additional traffic from such a zoning change. Traffic pressure to small neighborhood streets has been increased by the opening of Dorado Beach onto Hinson, an opening which was not envisioned when Dorado Beach was designed to be a small, neighborhood street which would provide a few residents access to Valley Park and subsequently to Pebble Beach. Prior to the opening of Dorado Beach to Hinson, the street was nearly at capacity during peak periods. The street is now, certainly, at capacity and is being used as a cut through by residents throughout the surrounding neighborhoods. The opening of Beckenham, as proposed in this rezoning, would further exacerbate an already dangerous situation. I respectfully request that Deltic Timber's proposed zoning change on Rahling be denied. 9/23/2008 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your consideration. Sherrill Wise Dillard's, Inc. VP, Treasurer 501-376-5345 phone 501-210-9505fax sherrill.wise aLdiilards.com 9/23/2008 To the LR Board of Directors, et al : My wife and I strongly oppose the rezoning request by Deltic Timber on the east side of Rahling Rd, south of the Pebble Beach intersection. This rezoning is totally unnecessary since; 1) There is already a significant amount of Multi -Family dwellings along Rahling Rd, 2) the largest shopping mall in the greater West Little Rock area sits at the intersection of Rahling and Chenal, AND 3) There is already significant MF-12 acreage on the West side of Rahling and North of Pebble Beach. If these new rezoning requests are approved, this will undoubtedly y make this small area the most densely populated, congested trafficked area in WLR. This creates a huge concern aorr my family and I, as well as, many otheir residents in the area. Such will ultimately have a significant negative impactto thevalueour our properties. Home owners such as ourselvespurchase homes based on master plans laid out by r k planewould hope we can taxpayer and an long-time resident of Little continue to count on the planning process being comething File residents 02 can rely on in their personal decision making process. On August 21st, I ask that you vote AGAINST the rezoning on Rahling Rd. We greatly appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, Greg & Susan Ashcraft #4 Powderhorn Ct. 501-228-5942 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Jeff Franzetti Deff.franzetti@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 8:58 PM To: jtferstl@comcast.net; Ihargraves@littlerockchamber.com; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; williams4850@sbcglobal.net; obray@aol.com; jyates@irwinpartners.com; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; Carney, Dana Subject: Proposed rezoning on Rahling Rd I am strongly against the proposing zoning change along Rahling Road to allow more apartments. As a resident of the Pebble Beach area, we moved here recently to get away from high traffic residential areas and would like to keep it that way. I am also concerned about any additional negative impact on property values this may have given the current state of the economy and slumping housing prices. Please consider NOT allowing this rezoning to occur on the August 21st LR Planning Commission meeting. Sincerely, Jeff Franzetti 2724 Valley Park Drive 501-228-4742 7/30/2008 Page 2 of 2 Nancy Speer Wagner Industries, Inc. General Manager 501.570.3001 501.565.1810 Fax size=2 width=" 100%" noshade color="#d2d3d2" align=center> This email and any files transmitted with it are private, confidential, and privileged material intended solely for the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you have received this email in error destroy it immediately. Wagner Industries, Inc. * * Confidential * * 7/23/2008 Rahling Road rezoning request Page 1 of 2 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:55 AM To: B. J. Wyrick (bj.wyrick@mail.state.ar.us); Brad Cazort (bzort@sbcgloba1.net); Dean Kumpuris (dean kumpuris@alltel.net); Doris Wright; Erma Hendrix (ehendrix2644@aol.com); Gene Fortson (genefortson @com cast. net); Joan Adcock (djadcock@comcast.net); Ken Richardson (krichardson@littlerock.org); Stodola, Mark (mstodola@littlerock.org); 'mstodola@catlaw.com'; Michael Keck (mkeck@stvincenthealth.com); Stacy Hurst Cc: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road rezoning request From: Zeynep.Vural@alltel.com[mailto:Zeynep.Vural@alltel.com] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:49 AM To: board; Keck, Michael; Gene Fortson; Gentry, Frederick; djadcock@comcast.net; Carney, Dana; jtferstl@comcast.net; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; Ihargraves@Iittlerockchamber.com Cc: VuralEmreAhmet@uams.edu Subject: Rahling Road rezoning request To the LR Board of Directors and LR Planning Commission: As long time residents of the Pebble Beach area, we strongly oppose the rezoning request by Deltic Timber on the east side of Rahling Rd, south of the Pebble Beach intersection. This rezoning is totally unnecessary since; 1) there is already a significant amount of Multi -Family dwellings along Rahling Rd, 2) the largest shopping mall in the greater West Little Rock area sits at the intersection of Rahling and Chenal, AND 3) there is already significant MF-12 acreage on the West side of Rahling and North of Pebble Beach. If these new rezoning requests are approved, this will undoubtedly make this small area the most densely populated, congested and highly trafficked area in WLR. This creates a huge concern for us, as well as many other residents in the area from whom you may have already heard opposition regarding this rezoning request. Such a rezoning will ultimately have a significant negative impact to the value of our properties. Home owners such as ourselves purchase our homes based on master plans laid out by our city planners. As taxpayers and long-time residents of Little Rock, we would hope we can continue to count on the planning process being something residents can rely on in their personal decision making process. On August 21st, we ask that you vote_AGA.INST the rezoning on Rahling Rd. (File #LU08-19-02) httr)://www.littlerock.ora/CitvDer)artments/Plannin _qAndDevelopmenUMeetingAgendas/A.gendas, 19-02%20zone. pdf We greatly appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Sincerely, Zeynep & Emre Vural 7/24/2008 Page 2 of 2 Rahling Road rezoning request 501-217-4014 may contain ***iudln**a�taChmentg�**-x************the The information contained in this message, inc or the person or confidential information tthe intendeddrecipient,, or delivered person oasts privilegedou are not recipient, Alltel 8 person identified above. If Y you do not read the message or responsible for delivering this message and the intended recip them to anyone else that you immediately notify the sender and asks that yor sending attachments, and that you delete them without copying 7/24/2008 Opposition to the Rahling Road rezoning Page 1 of 2 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:58 AM To: B. J. Wyrick (bj.wyrick@mail.state.ar.us); Brad Cazort (bzort@sbcgloba1.net); Dean Kumpuris (dean kumpuris@alltel.net); Doris Wright; Erma Hendrix (ehendrix2644@aol.com); Gene Fortson (genefortson@comcast.net); Joan Adcock (djadcock@comcast.net); Ken Richardson (krichardson@littlerock.org); Stodola, Mark (mstodola@littlerock.org); 'mstodola@catlaw.com'; Michael Keck (mkeck@stvincenthealth.com); Stacy Hurst Cc: James, Donna Subject: FW: Opposition to the Rahling Road rezoning From: Judy.L.Coleman@alltel.com [mailto:Judy.L.Coleman@alltel.com] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:22 AM To: board; Keck, Michael Subject: Opposition to the Rahling Road rezoning To the LR Board of Directors : I wanted to express my opinion and concern regarding the rezoning request by Deltic Timber on the east side of Rahling Rd, south of the Pebble Beach intersection. My hope is that it is not approved for the following reasons; 1) There is already a significant amount of Multi -Family dwellings along Rahling Rd, 2) The largest shopping mall in the greater West Little Rock area sits at the intersection of Rahling and Chenal, AND 3) There is already significant MF-12 acreage on the West side of Rahling and North of Pebble Beach. If these new rezoning requests are approved, this will undoubtedly make this small area the most densely populated, congested and highly trafficked area in WLR. This creates a huge concern for my family and I, as well as, many other residents in the area. Such a rezoning will ultimately have a significant negative impact to the value of our properties. As a taxpayer and a long-time resident of Little Rock, I would hope we can continue to count on the planning process being something residents can rely on in their personal decision making process. File #LU08-19-02 On August 21st, I ask that you vote_AGAI.NST the rezoning on Rahling Rd. http:/Iwww:l_ittlerock.org/t.ityDepartments/Flannin�AndDeve loI3ment/MeeiingAgendaslAgei -19-02°/%20zorie.pdf Thanks for your consideration! Judy Coleman 7/24/2008 Opposition to the Rahling Road rezoning Page 2 of 2 501-690-6770 1720 Sawgrass Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Alltel requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else 7/24/2008 Page 1 of 1 James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 8:59 AM rick mail.state.ar.us}; Brad Cazart (bzort@sbcglobal.net); Dea Genm Fortson uris B. J. Wyrick (bj.wy @ aol.com To: ❑oat Wright; Brad Hendrix (ehendrix2644@ (deankumpuris@alitei.net}; comcast.net}; Ken Richardson littlerock.org7; 'rnstodola@catlaw.com'; (genefortson@comcast.net); Joan Adcock (djadcook (krichardson@littlerock.org); Stodola, Mark (mstodola@ Michael Keck (mkeck@stvincenthealth-cam); Stacy Hurst Cc: James, Donna Subject: FW: Rahling Road From: Susan Johnson[mailto:sjohnson@kitchentuneup.com] Sent- Thursday, July 24, 2008 5:25 PM To: board subject: Rahling Road nd at. There arc 1'let�se do not approve the rezoning of Rahling Road to Multi-Failrt a that natlhave 00% occupancy. o large apartment complexes on Rahling Road and cammercia pro,e y t With the Lcgreen" and not allow every piece of grass to become concrete and asphalt. Lets Please keep Chenal Valley' g emp y s commerc occupy the current spaces availalale before yet e cithe�ereawill be ampleiofficce spacized to be e to resetting py largest employers in the y, departure of one of our Susan K.Johnson 501-223-8888 phone 501-350-1895 cell 501-224-0136 fax 7/25/2008 Page 1 of 1 Vote NO to Rezoning Rahling Road James, Donna From: Gentry, Frederick Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 9:00 AM sbcglobal.net); Dean Kumpuris To: B, J. Wyrick (bj.wyrick@maii.state.ar.us); Brad Cazort (bzort@ (deankumpuris@alitel.net); Doris Wright; Erma Hendrix (ehendrix2644@aol.comy; Gene Fortson ; Ken Richardson (genefortson@comcast.net); Joan Adcock (djadcock@ I the o k or} mstodola@catlaw.com'; (krichardson@littlerock.org); Stodola, Mark (mstodola@ gk Michael Keck (mkeck@stvincenthealth.com); Stacy Hurst Cc: James, Donna Subject: FW: Vote NO to Rezoning Rahling Road From: Pam.Moore@alltel.com [maiita:Pam.Moore@alltel.com} Sent, Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:27 PM com; ferry@7errymeyeragency.com; obray@aol.com; To; Carney, Dana; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy• Ihargraves@littlerockchamber.com; }tferstl@comcast.net; board; Gene Fortson; Keck, Michael Subject; Vote NO to Rezoning Rahling Road PLEASE Vote NO to Rezoning Rahling Road ******************************************************************may *contain ******* The information contained in this message, including attachments, or confidential information that is intended to be deliverederson only person identified above. to the privileged If you are not the intended recipient.. Alltel requests responsible for delivering this message to the intended rdoiP thread the message or that you immediately notify the sender and asks than you sending them to anyone else attachments, and that you delete them without copying 7/25/2008 Vote NO to Rezoning Rahling Road Page 1 of 1 Lampkin, Janet M. From: Carney, Dana Sent: Monday, July 28, 2008 8:44 AM To: Lampkin, Janet M. Subject: FW: Vote NO to Rezoning Rahling Road -----Original Message ----- From: Pam.Moore@alltel.com [mailto:Pam.Moore@alltel.com] Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 4:27 PM To: Carney, Dana; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; obray@aol.com; Ihargraves@littlerockchamber.com; jtferstl@comcast.net; board; Gene Fortson; Keck, Michael Subject: Vote NO to Rezoning Rahling Road PLEASE Vote NO to Rezoning Rahling Road * * * * * * * * k * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * The information contained in this message, including attachments, may contain privileged or confidential information that is intended to be delivered only to the person identified above. If you are not the intended recipient, or the person responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, Alltel requests that you immediately notify the sender and asks that you do not read the message or attachments, and that you delete them without copying or sending them to anyone else 7/28/2008 Carney, liana John Coppens ybcoppee5@att.net] From: Tuesday July 29, 2908 8:33 PM Sent: Carney, Dana To: Zoning Changes along Rahling Road Subject: Having moved last month from Wisconsin, we chose this house and necant reaasons wastheal reasons.wooded backyard and ne of e most ng that le family knowing that it iaourorealtoor atJanetJones). We were developement (perfact e tht that our use to a small community feel and hac d• The zoning children could play in a safe neighborhood. destroy Chan( that Deltic Timber is proposing what we had hope to find in Arkansas. WE stongtY gppQ5B these zoning changes and will continue to fight neighbors to keep this community as is. along side our John & Barb Coppens 2112 Sawgrass Drive 501-228-4969 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Paul Claunch [unitpc@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 10:18 PM To: Carney, Dana; chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com; jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com; obray@aol.com; Ihargraves@littlerockchamber.com; jtferstl@comcast.net; board; Gene Fortson; Keck, Michael Subject: Rahling Road Please vote against the Rahling Road rezoning request being proposed by Deltic Timber. Such rezoning to multi -family would have serious economic and safety impact on the Villages of Wellington single family residential area particularly given the necessary ingress and egress through the neighborhood. Thanks for your consideration and support. Paul & Marie Claunch 105 Wellington Colony Court Little Rock AR 72211 8/1/2008 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: Ellen Morgan [luv2fly5em@yahoo.coml Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 9:33 PM ergy com; ferry@jerrymeyeragency.com; To: Carney, Dana; chauncey.taylor@centerham a r-com tferstl comcast.net; hoard; Gene Fortson; obray@aol.com; lhargraves@iittlerackchamber.com; j @ Keck, Michael Subject: Rahling Road To Whom it may concern: I live in the Villages of Wellington, and we believe that a rezoning iR 1Road flz will gnegatively . impact our neighborhood- Please vote AGAINST the rezoning, Thank you, Ellen Morgan 73 Wellington Colony Drive 8/1/2008 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: odellnickelberry@comcest.net Sent: Friday, August 01, 2008 4:34 PM To: Carney, Dana uest your vote against the Rahling Rezoning August 21 st. I can be reached at 614- I am writing to re q 404-4539 if you have questions. Dr. Odell Nickelberry Villages of Wellington 8/l/2008 Page 1 of 1 Carney, Dana From: LISA BURGESS [lburgessnotes@yahoo.comi Sent: Sunday, August 03, 2008 8:19 PM To: Carney, Dana Subject: opposed to zoning changes along Rahling road zoning changes along RaI11.ialg road. Please We are opposed to the do not allow this re -zoning of this property. L Dairy &isa Burgess 2102 Sawgrass Dr. Little Rock, AR 72212 8/4/2008 300 Spring Building, Suite 320 Little Rods, Arkansas 72201 P.O. Boic 3355 Little Rods, Arkansas 72203-3355 Licensed in Arkansas and Missouri Adert J5. jguckaieW 2ttornep !fit Kab1 July 29, 2008 Little Rock Planning Commission 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ATTENTION: Chauncey Nick Taylor, Chairman RE: Deltic Timber's Proposal To Rezone 94+ Wooded Acres On The East Side of Rahling Road, Little Rock, AR Dear Chairman Taylor: Telephone (501) 375-7575 Toll Free 1-666-995-7554 Fax (501) 375-8063 www.bobbuckalew.com I am writing this letter on behalf of me and my family who have lived at 31 Ledgelawn Drive, Little Rock, AR for the past 20 ears. It is my understanding that the Planning Commission will consider at its meeting on August 2.1, 2008 a proposal by Deltic Timber -to rezone 94+ wooded acres on the east side of Rahling Road from what is currently zoned single family residences to muiti-family, commercial and office zones. Wh:L'Le I do not speak for my neighbors, I can tell you that me and my family vehemently oppose this rezoning. I was born and raised in El Dorado, AR and I grew up with many of the officers and employees of Deltic Timber. At the time I purchased my lot from Deltic and built my home on Ledgelawn Drive in 1987, I was shown a plan for the overall development of the area and I was certainly willing to abide by the rules regarding the overall development. Now it seems that Deltic Timber, who has obtained money from me for the purchase of the lot on which my residence was built, wants to change the rules in the middle of the ballgame with .regard to the overall development of the area. If Deltic Timber were to succeed in this rezoning effort, I feel that irreparable harm would occur in the area. Obviously, the character of the neighborhood will change forever, from single family residences to high density apartment complexes, strip centers, offices and commercial properties. In addition, due to the presence of new apartment dwellers and patrons of new businesses, traffic will dramatically increase. We already have a major problem with through traffic on Pebble Beach. This rezoning will make it unbearable. I might also add that a high density apartment will bring the following unwanted impacts and results to our quiet neighborhood, to wit: 1. Clear cutting of existing green space. 2. Noise pollution. -1-- 3. Light pollution. 4. Increase in crime. 5. Loss of backyard habitat. 6. Potential drainage, runoff & other water issues. 7. Property values will decrease! Deltic's proposed rezoning is not just about the potential profit they stand to make from this rezoning, but more importantly, it's about the daily lives of people who live in the area, people who have already paid Deltic for the peace and enjoyment of the homes they have built on land purchased from Deltic Timber. It is also about Deltic Timber being good stewards of the land they propose to rezone. In short, its about the integrity of Deltic Timber living up to the representation that Deltic made to me and my family and others at the time lots were purchased from Deltic. To say that I am disappointed in the actions of Deltic Timber in this matter would be an understatement. I plan on attending the August 21, 2008 meeting. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. RBB/sm CC: Pam Adcock Lucas Hargraves Obray Nunnley William F. Rector, Jr. Jeff Yates J.T. Ferstl Troy Laha Jerry Meyer B.J. Wyrick Margaret Dorland Kim Meldrum Sincerely, Robert B. Buckalew -2- Jay Raphael and Rhythm McCarthy 14715 Beckenham Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72212 Lera hael ualr.edu 501-569-8350 August 11, 2008 Dana Carney, Little Rock Planning Commission 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Carney, We are writing in regard proposed zoning changes ywhich apartments, commercial, adoffce buidi gsaongRahligRoad and hta e Pebble Beach Estates area. This proposed zoning will increase the population density and traffic in the mentioned areas and in effect have an extremely negative impact on the neighborhoods. This in itself is unacceptable, but perhaps more importantly is the negative impact it will have on the environment. It is now a daily part of our lives to be aware of the carbon footprint we are creating and leaving for future generations. This proposal directly affects the carbon footprint: fewer trees (effecting carbon dioxide ratios), more density emitting more green house gases into the atmosphere. isn't this what we are proposing to correct by creating different energy sources, planting trees not cutting them down. If this proposal is passed by the Planning Commission and the Little Rock Board of Directors, you will in effect be sending the message that the environment only matters when it doesn't impact a builder's pocket book. The other significant environmental impact will be on the wildlife which inhabits the proposed area. This includes deer, turtles, foxes and an enormous Audubon population which includes various hawks and eagles. If their habitat is destroyed they will in effect also be destroyed, as we continually encroach Little and systematically eliminate them• It is hard to making alieve nothehat thdollar relty allyfworth Rock is And if this to city a es the natural habitat of these creatures. that it is ... maybe we are living in the wrong place. Essentially, ours is not simply a philosophical point of view. Indeed there are many more issues than we have outlined. The number of families in this area, the immediate community beyond Pebble Beach in the Chenal Valley and, ironically, those communities you are eager to create by all of this construction will be immediately and ultimately negatively impacted by the destruction of the environment. We encourage you to enter into a dialogue with the citizens of West Little Rock which will take these concerns into consideration. incerely, ; Jay Raphael Rhythm McCarthy To: Little Rock Planning Commission members Re: Case: LU08-19-02 East side of Rahling Road, south of Pebble Beach Date: 3 September 2008 We write to oppose the rezoning of Deltic Timber's property on Rahling Road currently before the Commission. We would prefer to speak to the details of their rezoning request but the current version seems to be in flux. Apparently, the plan that Deltic Timber presented at the recent neighborhood meeting is different from their latest request to the Commission. In any event we oppose rezoning their property where it is already zoned as single-family. Such creeping rezoning—i.e., moving the goal posts —makes it impossible for homebuyers to assess the long-term value and livability of any nearby property they are considering. It is not right for a company with enough money to buy big pieces of Little Rock to make a profit while existing neighborhoods suffer the consequences. For the privilege of developing land in Little Rock, developers need to improve the quality of life for Little Rock citizens. If developers cannot take the initiative on this, the City needs to hold them accountable and make sure this goal is primary. Developers' profits must be secondary. A dozen years ago Deltic proposed to build Rahling Road from Chenal Parkway south to Pebble Beach, stopping it there. It was obvious that all traffic using Rahling Road would be forced to take Pebble Beach or Patriot with devastating effects on the neighborhoods, yet Deltic was undeterred. It required action by the City Board to require Deltic to continue Rahling to Taylor Loop before they connected Rahling to Pebble Beach. Even so, the city did not require completion of Rahling as a four -lane artery. Instead, Rahling narrowed from four to two lanes and the speed limit decreased from 45 to 35 just before Rahling reached Pebble Beach. Thus, drivers had equal motivations to take two-lane Pebble Beach or two-lane Rahling. All of this was easily foreseen by anyone who is in the business of development, yet it was done. With this in mind... ...Deltic should not be allowed to develop any of the property as currently zoned (all single family except for 20 acres which is zoned multifamily dwellings) until the infrastructure is completely in place. This includes completion of all roads to handle the increase in traffic. The city is still trying to deal with the traffic problem created on Pebble Beach Drive and Patriot Drive because this was not done when Rahling was connected to Taylor Loop. As described above, Deltic has shown no interest in maintaining the quality of neighborhoods impacted by their developments. The City has a legitimate, legal and ethical duty to see that this is done whenever developers fail to do so. This is beautiful land. Developers should not be allowed to level hills and clear-cut land, thereby destroying the land forever. In this case a neighborhood of single-family homes could have a large park with a large, deep lake and walking trails through the woods. It can be a residential showplace for prospective businesses that are thinking of locating in Little Rock and want to see some examples of housing for their employees. If Deltic does not want to invest in this plan, Deltic could donate land for these purposes to the city of Little Rock. As we develop Little Rock, we need to include green spaces at every opportunity rather than destroy them at every opportunity. Ann Coleman 167 Pebble Beach Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Larry Coleman To: Little Rock Planning and Development — Mr. Tony Bozynski and the Little Rock Planning Commission RE: Case LU08-19- 02 While growth and development is a must in our great city, it should not be done at the expense of existing neighborhoods where citizens have made large investments in their homes. Rezoning of this large tract from predominately single family to multi -family and commercial is not in the best interests of families living in neighborhoods from Pebble Beach to Beckenham to Villages of Wellington. Following are many of the reasons we oppose this rezoning: 1. Values of'single fainHy'properties in our area have already decreased due to traffic volume created by the opening of Pebble Beach to Rahling. 2. Traffic on Pebble Beach is almost unmanageable even with excellent cooperation from city officials.: Our., less than one mile neighborhood street now has many stop signs and speed bumps,,and it has become an artery between Rahling and Hinson instead of a neighborhood collector. 3. Safety and quality of life are already jeopardized let alone the property values alluded to. 4. We were told the Land Use Master Plan was a long term document and changes to parcels at the whims of developers to create possible higher values and not necessarily highest and best use would not be done. 5. We cannot agree-toDeltic Timber's almost automatic changes to land use they have received in the past and our Neighborhood Association will be glad to work with them in this matter. 6. Many neighborhoods in Chenal and other areas were created with one way in and out or gated access - yet - Deltic wants to flood our neighborhood with traffic they create. 7. Rezoning cannobprecede roads and infrastructure which would decrease impacts on -neighborhoods: 8'. The existing R2 zoriing'should provide Deltic the opportunity to enhance the existing neighborhoods around Pebble Beach, Beckenham and Villages of Wellington instead of creating a mixed land use plan of apartments and = commercial thereby deteriorating those neighborhoods. In closing, we realize hindsight is always 20/20 so please don't let a problem not totally resolved since 1996 continue: J refer to the attached e-mail dated May 5, 2008. Thank you for your attention to this matter and for your devotion in doing what's right for our city. p... . 1j Regards from zke and- Barbara Block at 148 Pebble Beach Dr. September 17, 2008 Print From: MIKE BLOCK (m.bloek@sbcglobal.net) To: Bruce Moore; Michael Keck; Frederick Gentry; Ann Coleman; Lawrence Coleman Bate: Monday, May 5, 2008 8:12:56 AM Subject: History doesn't always have to repeat itselp Good Morning, wife Barbara at 148 pebble Beach Dr. We have lived at this address I am Mike Block and live with my camped and since 1981 after transferring from Dallas. Our kids were 2n and a mt acres of woods We amps house of which I'm not opposed, as it was my job to forecast growth was the third from the end of the street. It was a dead en hiked into this large area. Alas, Progress-) ded tele hone lines to new areas for Southwestern Bell. subdivisions n West d and our of nee P s. Then, Chenal becomes the focus Of atte lion i street remained a dead end for many year Little Rock. I realize l am boring You with this history lesson you already know, but we and our ock to be courageous neighbors d€ Wt want history to repeat itself. We wanto s v0ted.to givettthe h nal development a free and help us save our neighborhood. The Board of Due QSe improvement hand with the passage of an ordinance in mid 1996 to create a mu doing s the directors district, including the Cut through of Pebble Beach to Rahling. else, said two additional streets would also be cut to reduce traffic on Pebble speedB burps ansd limits, anything has been done to allievate this traffic situation' Oh sureBut, the f signs, r aZins over 6,000 cars travel our street been established and we appreciate those changes. But, ow. At the board meetings in 1996, daily and that number will only increase as Ghenal continues to grow- cut through was Mayor aim Daily stated that our neighborhood presentation against pebble Beach being gthrough Pebble Y his position, he also stated that cutting the best he'd ever seen. Then, before he retiree on the board during all o this, and while your actions Beach was a big mistake. Mr. Keck, you w like your orhood et mean well there are still no resolutions. Would each of you in our neb� hood or what to be e ours? Would each of you like to fear for what has happened .. others chose could`? Ghenal is a great development and place to live, but why do the residenst/west and then ? Why s would they to cut through our street to get to PA an �p sigherns, pospeed bumps and police in order to save 60 second rs o choose to drive our street oblivious to st pthat gets their attention. PA The only way to change habit and behavior is to make achange those that have the power to stop placing an y its u to you s parents didn't do it, so I'm assuming p y . eiy. to its residents or those cutting through. Many entire neighborhood in jeopardy, let alone passible injury just going to mail bosses, mowing and edging of us living along Pebble Beach have feared for our safety j then move it away f7rorn lawns, or backing out of driveways: If the goal is to' keep ixaffic, sm� v'r'g' s, and speed limits. it is a Pebble Beach with its winding curves, blind hills, speed bump P to allow neighborhood street, not a major artery. please don't let history repeat itself by continuing g to do and would be a win/win for everyone. this traffic problem to ga unresolved. It is the right thing I thank each of you for all you do and have done for our city. Regards from the Block's http://us.f8l 5.mail.yahoo.com/de/launch?.Partn,zr-sbc&.rand=50v3bpa872gt1 9/17/2008 Moore, Monte From: Jeff Yates [JYates@irwinpartners.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 9:54 PM To: Cheryl Wagaman Cc: Moore, Monte Subject: Re: Deltic Timber Zoning Proposal Mrs. Wagaman, Thank you for being involved and expresssing your concerns. More participation makes for a more valuable process. I encourage you to come to the public hearing. Planning Staff can give you more information @ 371-4790. Thank you, Jeff Yates Jeff Yates Irwin Partners 0 501.225.5700 M 501.352.3325 Sent from my mobile. Typographical errors will occur, Original Message From: "Cheryl. Wagaman" <cher.ylwagaman@sbcglobal.net> Subj : De.Lt Lc Timber 'Zoning Proposal Date: Tue Aug 19, 2008 20:47 Size: 677 bytes To: "jyates@irwinpartners.com" <jyates@irwinpartners.com>; "lhargraves@littlerockchamber.com" <lhargraves@littlerockchamber.com>; "williams4850 @sbcglobal.net" <williams4850@sbcglobal.net>; "jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com" <je:rry@jerrymeyeragency.com>; "jtferstl@comcast.net" <jtferstl@comcast.net>; "Chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com" <chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com>; "ob,ray@aol.com" <obray@aol.com>; "board@littlerock.org" <board@littlerock.org> Dear Little Rock Planning Commission and Little Rock Board of Directors, As .residents of Dorado Beach Drive, we ask that you vote against the proposed zoning changes by Deltic Timber along Rahling Road. It is unacceptable to allow more Multifamily Housing along Rahling Road, and we oppose the thru street that will route drivers from Rahling to Beckenham, down Dorado Beach to Hinson. We feel this will have a negative impact on the safety of the neighborhood as well as the property values in the Pebble Beach Estates and Pebble Beach Woods neighborhoods. Thank you, Brian & Cheryl Wagaman 1902 Dorado Beach Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 1 I•-irefighlur Sean Mahanay helps Egypt Watkins experience what it feels -like to operate a fire hose Thursday at North Little Rock Fire Station No. 7 c— -McCain Boulevard. Egypt-and her kindergarten classmeres were visiting from Crestwood Elementary School in North Little Rock. Papanelpasses nei hbormo osed rezonin Developer plans shops, multifamily housing; residents wary of traffic, apartments BY KRISTIN NETTERSTROM ARKANSASDEMOCRAT-GAZETTE Little Rock planning commis- sioners approved a rezoning re- quest Thursday for shops, com- mercial space and multifamily housing despite concerns from residents about the effect of ad- ditiarial traffic and apartments. With petitions in hand, resi- dents from various neighbor- hoods along Rahling Road spoke against a rezoning request by Deltic Timber Corp. and Agar Shuffield Joint Venture to devel- op G$ acres of wooded property east of Rahling Road and south of Pebble Beach Drive. The ciWs planning staff also opposed the changes: The developers' representa- tives said they needed a zoning designation that would allow for more development to be able ruer heats up contest in Senate ijistriet 30, Unsigned mailing was challenger's BY DEBRA HALE-SHELTON ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT -GAZETTE CONWAY — D.emoerat Joe White took credit Thursday for an unsigned campaign flier questioning whether state Sen. Gilbert Baker's. decision to di- rect $558,000 in discretionary funds solely to the University of Central Arkansas had .anything to' do with"persaiial favors from former UCA President Lu Hardin.' "Joe White did approve this message,". -White, of`Conway, said shortly after Baker held a news conference to call the flier "anonyinous Wasliiinfrton attack stuff." White is challenging the Conway Republican's re-elec- tion bid to the District 30 Sen- ate seat. . The flier says, "Sen. Gilbert directed $558,000 to the Uni- versity of Central Arkansas and ZERO went to Faulkner County. Did personal favors have any- thing to do with this transac- tloni'" It also says, "Sen. Baker has been the beneficiary of gifts and favors paid for. from Former UCA President Lu Hardin's public expense fund." Baker, a former music pro- fessor at UCA; countered, "None of this was the resultof any favors. I've been focused on See DISTRICT 30, Page 5B Z fillers, a rapist, a gunman recommended for clemency BY.ANDY I]AVIS A[ijst FSlls nrM(Ig',RA'i:GAZEM The Arkansas Oarole Board annouliced Thursday that it has recorniriended clemency for .two murderers and a rapist, and for a man ,mho shot a Little Rock convenience store clerk during a robbery. Cecilia Rple.son, Larry Davis, Ga*' West:and Larry Cromwell ,are all serving, life sentences, Land al.l have been recommended for clemency before. In each case, the board vot- ed 5-0 to recommend that Gov. Mike Beebe commute the sen- tence to -make the inmate eligi- ble for parole. Those votes were ratified unanimously -by the full board, spokesman Rhonda Sharp said. Roleson, 58, was convicted along with her husband, Jerry, in the 1979 shooting death of See CLEMENCY, Page 5B to afford connecting two ex- isting streets to Rahling Road. There are no immediate• plans to build. Residents who spoke during a 20-minute public comment period said they would endure heavier traffic with the devel- opment and connection of the roads. They also opposed hav- ing commercial .and multifam- ily housing next to single-family housing•when property with that zoning already existed nearby and wasn't developed.,. "This is ill-conceived," said Bud Laumer, a certified land -use planner who spoke on behalf of his•Hillsborough neighborhood. "You're not going to continue building a great city if you're conning a developer to build your streets for you." See REZONING, Page 7B ., -• - - ^^'.�°':*r+T---ram.-�-• --�— e FRIDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2008 w 7113 Funeral Home in Clinton. Visitation w spoke in favor. of the rezoning lOUNTAIN HOME —James Clev- Mountain Home died is Friday, 6 to 8 p.m. at the funeral home. Online guest book- www.rol Rezoning - requests. Planning commissioners, er, 73, of t. 2,9 at Mountain Home. Funeral lerfuneralhomes.com. ■Continued from Page 1 B however, reminded residents Ace 2.00 Thursday, Twin Lakes inch of the Nazarene. Visitation 5PRINGDALE —Edward."ED" Ma- Deltic, a publicly traded tim- that the city can't afford new roads and voters rejected sales i i-8:00 Wednesday at Kirby &. Funeral Home. Arrangements. honey, 72, of Springdale, Ark., died ber and real estate company, typ- Tuesday. Graveside services will be ically sells its land to developers tax increases for roads. ' "Everybody to lily Kirby & Family Funeral and Cre- 11 am. Friday at Arlington Memorial Park in El Dorado under the direc- and then, -in some cases, brokers wants com- plain about the infrastructure lion Services. Visit an online tuary and guestbook at- WWW. tion of Young's. A memorial service will be held at a later date at Cal- the sale or lease of the developed land. The company has devel- needs of this city but nobody Commis= ` �yandfam€ly.com. vary Chapel in The Ozarks. An online oped numerous subdivisions in wants to pay," said p Y sioner Bill Rector, who added MOUNTAIN HOME — Dorothy Hol- 86, of Mountain Home died guest registry is available at www. youngsfuneralhome.com. west Little Rock. A traffic engineer for the de- that the city had made promises lay, itember 29 at Mountain Home. feral Mass, 11.00 Thursday, St. STAMPS —. Ms. Maurice Rose; 87, elo ers said area roads would see v p traffic with future develop- to Pebble Beach Drive residents to relieve traffic. :er's Catholic Church. Arrange- his.: by Kirby & Family Funeral Stamps died Sept. 28th, 2003. Fuser- al Saturday, 11 a.m., Smith Chapel* more meat, but it would be spread out "Don't invoke our name. We don't want it either," yelled a =' i •Cremation Services. Visit an ine to ry and at stamps. Interment, Lakeside Cem- etery. Stamps. Officiating, Rev. M.L. on multiple streets rather than on PebbleBeachDrivealone. The city , Pebble Beach Road resident. obi#nary :guestbook rw.kirb miiy.com. Glover. Survivors son, Raymond Paul Fields-, brother, 011ie Mack, Stamps. recently installed speed bumps p Other residents who shouted back comments said they weren't 3KOLONA — Johnnie Lee Casteel, Smith Funeral Home, stamps, .in and more stop signs to slowdown traffic on the road, which is used concerned about the roads as ; of Okolona, -Arkansas, passed away September 3D, charge. '• by about 3,O0d vehicles a day, ac- much as the were against the Y g I •2008, in Little Rock, WARREN —Vivian Nelson Brooks, age. 94, of Warren, Arkansas, died cording to the developers' traffic ' rezoning requests. Commissioner Jeff Yates said Arkansas. He was retired from the Tuesday, September 30th, at Wag non count. The city's master street plan ty he realized that the audience was US Air Force and served 12 years as Place Nursing. Home. She was born July 1,1914, in Vicksburg, Mississippi, showed streets from the neighbor- against theproposal, but added g that thousands of residents live a civil servant. Mr, Casteel was born a daughter of the late Edward To Nelson and Vivian Marie Couret Nei- hoods connecting toRahlingRoad, but those 1980s-era connections in the area and not everyone M August 28, 1933, to 9 Charles and Sallie son. She was a Methodist, a retired educator with over 20 years of ser- are no longer feasible because $ des had shifted, said Sill showed u to oppose it. P pp i� "One voice is not for all.,"• he _ - — Williams Casteel in Elizabethtown,.Har- vice in the Warren Public School Sys- tem, a graduate of the University of other Spivey, aDeltie attorney. The new said before moving to approve - n Co., Kentucky. Johnnie was a loving husband, Arkansas with an Education degree and a member of the Tri Delta Soror- connections will be costly for the developers, he said. the requests. Chairman Chauncey Nick ther and grandfather as well as i avid golfer and hunter. He was a ity for 75 years. She was preceded in death by her husband Whittaker- That riled residents. «Deltic Timber is not go- Taylor and Commissioner Ob- j ray Nunnley voted against the ember of the Gravel Ridge Baptist iurch. He served, 28 years in the Sharp Brooks, who died August 6, 1987;-and they were united in mar- 1934. ing to go broke. They want to change the zoning for roads. requests while Commissioner Lucas Hargraves abstained, say- filed States Air Force, serving in ith the Korean and Vietnam Wars riage in Survivors include two sons, Col. That's tough. They've got plenty ing he hadn't heard the entire td retiring as a chief master ser- ?ant. He was awarded the Bronze David Brooks (RET) and spouse Mimi, Warren, Arkansas. Nelson Brooks and of money to change that," said one man who spoke against the presentation. , "They're owned by Deltic, ar for: service in Vietnam. Fie.is preceded in death by his spouse Denise, Richardson, Texas; a daughter, Nancy Green, Star City, requests. No from the public completely owned," a woman in t the crowd said after the vote. { arents and one brother, Rodman Arkansas; seven grandchildren and one " asteel. Survivors include his wife f 52 years, Margaret Alice; a son, ary Casteel bf the Neth- seven great-grandchildren. Graveside services 10 a.m., Satur day, October4th, at Oakland Cem- w Lindsay granted the univer- sity's request for a "stay of dis- .Wayne `glands, and a daughter, Lisa Gail etery with Reverend Gary Maskell covery," but'Terry later issued y asteel of Columbus, Mississippi; a Vother, Clarence Casteel of Eliza- officiating. Visitation 6 p.m. till 8 p.m. Friday, October 3rd, at Frazer's. Surl- 4 Continued from Page 1 B a subpoena to the Department ]? of Finance and Administration ethtown, Ky.; a sister, Rose Sum- iers of St. Charles, Mo.; and four at in Oakland Cemetery by Frazer's Funeral Home. Online guest register hold that the appeal is moot," Justice. Paul E. Danielson wrote for e-mails of an employee at , that agency who was. A friend of . i .randchildreri, Jerod Casteel, Rachel ;asteel, Allison Casteel and Jordan www.frazbrfuneralhome.com. ❖ — for the unanimous court. Danielson also wrote that Prewett. " :asteel. Services will be 2 p.m. Satur- WHITE HALL — Dorothy Ann Har rison, 34, of White Hall died Sept. 27, Terry had failed to prove that Christian. argued that Lind- say s order wasn't cleai, but the lay. October 4, 2008, at the Center JrOve -Methodist Church with Rev. 2008. Survivors parents, Louie and Gertie Stanley Harrison; brothers, there were any reasons for the court to take it up despite the Supreme Court disagreed. Lindsay ion Grisby and Rev. Rick Wilkins ifficiatin- Interment will be in Cen- Cayleb and Billy Harrison; sisters, Mamie Cooper and April Cooley. Ser- case being moot. As to the claim that - was b}ased; the opinion said that . er Ridge Cemeter with full Military g y vices 2 p.m., Saturday, Harvest lime The e-mails included one' Christian. failed tv make a prop- fonors under the direction of Pharr Church by Cranford Funeral Home of December 2006 from booster , er objection before Lindsay or ) 'uneral Home Gurdon. Visitation will White Hall. Teresa Prewett to Mustain that move that Lindsay recuse from = ie October 3, 2008, from 6-8 p.m. at ?harr Funeral Home Chapel. YELLVILLE — George M. Stout, 92, Yellville, died September 26, urged him to leave the team and the case. ' dubbed him "Mr. Interception s The circuit court judge had PEARLY — Rosie rrootsie" Ja- fette Morrison, 66, of Pmrcy died of 2008. at his residence. Services are private. Survived by wife, Margaret Ding:' ordered Christian to pay the at- 4 Terry contended, that as a tvrney fees for the defendants Nednesday. Services 2 p.m. Friday, and step -daughter, Darlene Bird. Ar- taxpayer he was entitled to chat- and the witness who brought the n "hristway Unity Church, 300 Oak- rangements are by Kirby & Family fawn, Hot Springs. Pastor Sea Arline Funeral and Cremation Services. Visit leri a in court whether White contempt motion g r• had done his job and that if At tbe. Supreme Court, the I pfficiating. interment in Ozark Lythia an online obituary and guestbook a# Cemetery by Welch Funeral Home of www.kirbyandfamily.com. White had failed to do the iob, P . . case is C 117.07 I094-6, john I7u- ,t -ferry Arkadelphia. Visit www.welchfh.net }} to sign guest book. Out-of-state White, as a public employee, v..d v. John A. White, in his I was guilty of an illegal exaction capacity at chancellor of the Uni- J �.. n..n C ..nifn.fiYi❑ � OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Little Rock, Arkansas MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Mark Stodola FROM: Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney BY: Cynthia S. Dawson L?`5�Dl Deputy City Attorney RE: Complaint by Rachel Chaney about Planning Commission Notice DATE: 16 APRIL 2009 On April 7, 2009, Rachel Chaney, on behalf of the Hillsborough neighborhood, protested by email to the City Attorney about notice aspects of the Little Rock Planning Commission's April 2, 2009 meeting. The meeting had been moved from its regular location to a room in Robinson Auditorium because of the shutdown the day before of the City Hall elevator undergoing replacement. Ms. Chaney stated that the meeting was moved "without any public notification" and that while she was able to find the meeting on short notice, the representative of the Hillsborough neighborhood, David Laumer, was late to the meeting and when he did arrive, was not allowed to speak. In his response, the City Attorney noted that there had been signs and notices for some time that the City's meetings would be held in a different location. On the day of the Planning Commission meeting, there were notices on the various doors to City Hall stating that the Planning Commission meeting had been moved across the street to Robinson Auditorium. In addition, there was publicity about meeting changes in the local news media. A press release to that effect was issued prior to April 1, 2009. In addition, notification of the necessity for meeting changes due to the elevator replacement were emailed and sent by regular mail to the neighborhood associations by the Housing and Neighborhood Programs Department, Ms. Chaney correctly pointed out that as of the day of the April 2, 2009 Planning Commission meeting, that the City's website had not been changed to reflect the substituted meeting location. When Ms. Chaney brought that to the City's attention, information about meeting locations was quickly changed on the portion of the website where the specific Planning and Development Department agenda items are displayed. Ms. Chaney correctly noted in later email correspondence of April 15, 2009 that the link to the Boards and Commissions portion of the City's website listed the usual City Hall location and not the new location in Robinson Auditorium. That portion of the website was changed yesterday, as was the front page of the website, which now has been loaded with Planning Commission time, place and room information. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Memorandum to Mayor Mark Stodola Re: Complaint about notice of Planning Commission meeting 16 April 2009: Page 2 of 2 While Mr. Laumer was stopped when he attempted to speak while Casey Tucker was at the podium, that action by a commissioner appeared to be an attempt to keep the normal order of the meeting, given that it is usual for only one person to be recognized at the podium at a time. Mr. Laumer was not recognized to speak, but the opponents to the Rahling Road Land Use and Zoning Application items, like the proponents, were given equal time to state their case. According to the long-standing practice of the Planning Commission, items that have already been heard previously by the Commission are accorded ten minutes per side and the practice was adhered to. It is certainly regrettable that a few forms of notice of the meeting location were incorrect and that Mr. Laumer was not able to arrive at the meeting when the Rahling Road issues began to be heard by the Commission. Unfortunately, there was a little confusion, perhaps inevitable, due to the elevator's shutdown just the day before the public meeting. Nevertheless, the fact that there were many people in attendance, particularly for the Rahling Road issues and the contentious Aloft Hotel issue, indicates that the notification of the changed meeting was largely successful. Furthermore, five persons spoke in opposition to the Rahling Road issues and there was no guarantee that Mr. Laumer, even if he had been in attendance for the entire hearing of the Rahling Road items, would have been among those called upon to speak within the allotted time. There were 21 cards in total turned in for speaking before the Commission, of which 19 were in opposition. The hearings before the Planning Commission were not the only opportunities to provide the City with public sentiment on the Rahling Road issues. The opponents of the issues, just like those in favor, will have an opportunity to address the Board of Directors, the entity with the authority to pass or reject the items, at the upcoming public hearing on the issues. cc: Bruce T. Moore City Manager Bryan Day Assistant City Manager Tony Bozynski Director of Planning and Development OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Little Rock, Aikansas I1/ 5 D109JUBloDIUMV9 I TO: Tony Bozynski Director of Planning & Development FROM: Thomas M. Carpenter 4"t-1— City Attorney Re: Rahling Road Land Use & Zoning Application (LU 08-10-02); Z8165-A DATE: 05 March 2009 On 10 February 2009 counsel for Deltic Timber Company sent a letter of protest about the 05 February 2009 hearing before the Planning Commission. This letter was sent to Mayor Stodola, City Manager Bruce T. Moore, and myself. I was asked to review the matter and prepare a re- sponse to the letter. The response is attached to this memorandum. The gist of the response is that the Commission must hold a new hearing which clarifies hat the purpose is to consider only the proposed amendments to the original application. As noted in the write-up for the 05 February 2009 meeting, and the notice that was filed for that meeting, the action item was to consider the amendments to the application approved in October 2008. The Commission hearing went far beyond that limited review. This situation raises a significant issue for both the Board of Directors and the Commission. There is no doubt that the Board has the authority to send a matter back to the Commission for further review. However, if the reason is because of proposed amendments to the application, the Board should indicate whether the review is limited to the amendments, or if it is to be a com- plete review of the entire application as revised with the proposed amendments. The appeal pro- cedure grants an applicant the right to have an application heard by the Board of Directors. If the applicant chooses to go forward without any amendments, then that desire should be timely met. If not, the applicant needs to know the consequences of a return to the Commission — i.e., will it be a de novo review of the entire application, or merely a review of the proposed amendments. Without this knowledge, the applicant really cannot make a knowing and intelligent decision as to which course of action to take. Similarly, when the matter is sent back to the Commission, the Commission should specifi- cally note the scope of the direction that it has been given. If the scope is to consider only amendments, then the notice and the write-up (as in this situation) should notify the applicant and other interested parties of that fact. If the scope extends to the entire proposal, then the -appli- cant and the other parties are entitled to know that fact. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Memorandum to Tony Bozynski, Director of Planning & Development Re: Rahling Road Land Use & Zoning Applicatoin (LU 08-10-02); Z8165-A 05 March 2009: Page 2 of 2 Please note that nothing in this memorandum limits the authority of the Board to send back a planning measure that does not contain amendments. For example, if there is a changed circum- stance from the application before the Board of Directors, the fact no proposed amendment to the application has been presented does not preclude the Board's authority to ask the Commission for further review. As an example, assume that the Department of Homeland Security, working with the Federal Aviation Administration, concludes that there should be a greater zone of non - development around the airport and intends to implement this new regulation at some point in the future. A zoning matter for consideration by the Board of Directors has approved a commer- cial development near the airport, but this new ruling from the federal government causes the Board of Directors to wonder about traffic and other issues. The Board is perfectly free to send the unamended application back to the Commission for its review. The attached letter provides a more detailed analysis of the situation here. So, such analysis will not be repeated. However, there are two important points to be made: 1. Absolutely nothing in this matter should be considered as a direction, indica- tion, or suggestion, about the Commission's ultimate decision after this re- view; and, 2. This situation is not to be considered as a precedent for any future action since any potential further review would require the same careful fact intensive analysis given to this one. Of course, if the procedural changes outlined at the beginning of this memorandum are imple- mented— i.e., the clarification of the reason for a return to the Commission of an application be- fore the Board of Directors — then virtually no future questions on this point should arise. TMC:ct cc. Mayor Stodola and Members of the Board of Directors Chair Taylor and Members of the Planning Commission Bruce T. Moore, City Manager William C. Mann, III, Chief Deputy City Attorney Cynthia S. Dawson, Deputy City Attorney Shayla Beebe, Operations Administrator Thomas M. Carpenter City Attorney OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY '500 West Markham, Ste.. 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Writer's Direct Dial: 371-6875 Writer's email: tcarperFter(a), ittierock.orq March 5, 2009 John William Spivey, III, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNWGs, LLP 200 West Capitol Avenue, Ste. 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 7220173699 Telephone (501) 371-4527 Telefacsimile (501) 371-4675 Re: Protest of conduct of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission at its February 10, 2009 meeting/Your letter of 10 February 2009 Dear Mr. Spivey: I have been asked to respond to your letter, and the included materials, that were sent to me, Mayor Mark Stodola, and City Manager Bruce T. Moore, on February 10, 2009. I have completed the review of your complaint, and I have reviewed the file and the DVD of the Planning Commission meeting, It is clear that there was a major misunderstanding as to what specific actions were before the Planning Commission on that date. Unfortunately, there was some kind of misunderstanding in my office as to the conclusion as to what the Commission should consider. The Commission approved the basic zoning applications on October 2, 2008. The Little Rock Board of Directors was to consider this request during its meeting of November 18, 2008. In light of an amendment offered as a result of consultation between your client and neighborhood residents; Director Michael Keck requested that the matter be returned to the Commission to consider the amendment. Between this directive, and the Commission meeting on February 5, 2009, there were additional discussions and proposed amendments. The crucial question is what issues were actually under consideration at the February 5, 2009, Commission meeting. Your client clearly indicated that only the amendments were un- der consideration. The Commission, with comments from my office, decided to vote upon the entire application which included the previously approved application. From the materials that I have reviewed, this was inappropriate. Even the staff analysis of the issue for the February 5, 2009, Commission meeting notes that the `Board of Directors has sent the revised portion of the application back to the Planning Commission for reconsid- eration. " 1 The public hearing notice for this meeting explained ' See ITEM NO.: F.1, .FILE NO.: z-8165-A, STAFF ANALYSIS at 1 (unnumbered) (dated February 5, 2009) (.emphasis added). I. II Revised LITTLE ROCK PLANNING CO CONSENT AGENW PLANNING — REZONING — CONDITIO] APRIL 2, 2009 4:00 P.M. CONSENT WITHDRAWAL: 3. G-23-408 Alley — Right -of -Way Block 94, Original Cit: The applicant submitted a letter to staff on April 1, 2009 requesting this application be withdrawn without prejudice. Staff supports the withdrawal request, as the applicant will instead file for a franchise agreement. A b� ylaw wat�'ver�s needed, based on the fact the request for withdrawal was made less than five (5) days prior to the public hearing. CONSENT APPROVAL: 2. Z-8444 Rezoning from R-2 to M East of Arch Street Pike, south of Interstate 30 Staff recommends approval of the requested M rezoning. 4. Z-4907-A Celebrity Cutz Barber and Beauty Salon — Conditional Use Permit 4021 Asher Avenue Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Letter to John William Spivey, III, Esquire Re: Rahling Road Planning Commission hearing of February 5, 2009 March 5, 2009: Page 2 of 4 A Revision has been filed for a rezoning application approved by the Planning Commission on 10-0.2-08. The approval was for 68.93 acres. The revision is for 20.30 acres within the northern portion of the property, which was ap- proved for "MF-18" Multifamily District zoning. The applicant is not request- ing "00-3" General Office District for the 20,30 acres. (See attached sketch -area marked "change"). NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSION ON A REVISED APPLICATION TO REZONE PROPERTY at EXPLANATION (dated January 15, 2009) (emphasis sup- plied). The question then turns upon whether there was an appropriate hearing on the zoning application in light of the language quoted above which limited the scope of review, and the vote that was taken by the Commission. A letter was sent by your office on January 28, 2009, to note that additional amendments had been made to the application as a result of conversations with nearby neighborhoods. The letter specifically mentioned conversations with the Chenal Ridge Property Owner's Associa- tion. However; the notice referenced above was never changed to suggest that more than the amendments were under consideration. In Arkansas, a planning commission is statutorily required to adopt rules and regulations for the internal fulfillment of its duties. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-408 (West 2004). The Com- mission here has adopted by-laws for its operations. Article I of the bylaws states as their pur- pose It is the intent of this BYLAWS to prescribe the organization of the Little Rock Planning Commission and to establish orderly, equitable and expeditious pro- cedures for the conduct of its affairs to the end that all may be informed and the public well served ARTICLE I, Little Rock Planning Commission Bylaws (ed. August 7, 2008) (emphasis added). As noted above, the notice for the February 5, 2009 meeting, and the Staff Analysis of what was under consideration at that meeting, are not consistent with the action taken by the Com- mission at the meeting. In short, the vote actually taken was neither orderly, nor equitable, as required by the Commission's bylaws. A hearing on a topic beyond the noticed issue of amendments to an application is not ap- propriate under the -procedures that the City has adopted. The hearing was not advertised as consideration of the entire zoning request, but only as to the amendments. Of course, there is a right to appeal the action of the Planning Commission to the Board of Directors. A simple question is whether this right of appeal should suffice in this circum- stance, i.e., even if the action of the Commission went beyond the notice and intent of the ap- plicant, the Board of Directors is free to review the situation anew. The problem, though, is OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Letter .to John William Spivey, III, Esquire Re: Rahling Road Planning Commission hearing of February 5, 2009 March 5, 2009: Page 3 of 4 that the Planning Staff recommended against approval of this application. So, the applicant has to appeal a matter with staff disapproval, and a negative vote from the Commission even though what the applicant believed would be the nature of the .Commission's action, and what the Notice said would be the nature of the action, were different from what the Commission voted upon. In other words, the applicant believed that, consistent with the direction of the Board of Directors, the review was limited, yet the Commission voted upon an entire project including the approved portion from October, 2008. It is in this light that a mere appeal is in- equitable to the applicant, and to the public. It was clearly noted at the Commission that there was substantial interplay between the applicant and the. neighborhood. With such agreement in place, and the review apparently lim- ited to the amendments to the original application, there was really no reason for more per- sons to testify in favor of the application. Had it been known that the entire scope of the pro- ject under review, however, both the applicant and the public would have had the opportunity to determine just how many proponents and opponents should have been present. Because the February 5, 2009, hearing was contrary to the notice, and contrary to the ini- tial write-up of the Planning Staff, the decision cannot be supported under an standard of be- ing equitable. It is totally inappropriate for the Board of Directors to consider such an action from the Commission beyond what was referred to it by the Board, and beyond what was pro- vided for in the notice. Further, it is inherently unfair for the public in opposition to this ap- plication to have any weight of the .opposition diminished because on appeal the Board will have to recognize that the actions of the Planning Commission were arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, this office is informing the Commission that the only thing to do is to rehear this application to consider only the amendments. Nothing in this conclusion is to be consid- ered an indication as to how the Commission should vote. Frankly, this office does not care how the ultimate vote comes out; the only concern is the equitable nature of the process. I apologize that this letter sounds like a legal opinion and not simply as a response to your letter, but I intend this conclusion to be communicated immediately to the Commission and the Planning Staff by my office so a new hearing date can be set. To that end, I do not wish to write a second letter of explanation, and will use this one for both purposes. Let me make one final. point. This result is heavily influenced by the October 2008 action of the Board of Directors. There is no question that the Board of Directors has the authority to refer matters back to the Commission for further review. Ark. Code Ann. § 15-46-422 (West 2004).. When such a referral occurs, then the Commission should only consider what has been returned for further review. The records noted above make it clear that the Commission was only to consider the amendments to this application since the approval of the October 2008 application. . OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Letter.to John William Spivey, III, Esquire Re: Rahling Road Planning Commission hearing of February 5, 2009 March 5, 2009c Page 4 of 4 In other words, the conclusion here is a fact intensive one, and in no way should this con- clusion be considered precedent for any other issue that may arise. It is impossible to make any conclusion without a careful consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Sincerely, W&a.w,.� Al . Thomas M. Carpenter v City Attorney cc, Mark Stodola, Mayor Bruce T. Moore, City Manager William C. Mann, III, Chief Deputy City Attorney Cynthia S. Dawson, Deputy City Attorney Page 1 of 1 Bozynski, Tony From: Chaney Rachel - rchane [Rachel.Chaney@acxiom.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:30 PM To: Carpenter, Tom Cc: Dawson, Cindy; Bozynski, Tony; Moore, Bruce Subject: RE: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission I heard today that this issue is scheduled to come before the Board of Directors on May 5. Will you have an answer to my question before then? Thank you, Rachel Chaney From: Carpenter, Tom[mailto:TCarpenter@littlerock.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:32 AM To: Chaney Rachel - rchane Cc: Dawson, Cindy; Bozynski, Tony; Moore, Bruce Subject: RE: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission Importance: High Dear Ms. Chaney, There have been signs and notices for some time that the City's meetings would be held in a different location. Your comment about the website notification is new to me, and I will have it reviewed by my staff. When this review is completed, I will be in touch. Tom Carpenter The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. 4/ 16/2009 Page 1 of 2 Bozynski, Tony From: Chaney Rachel - rchane [Rachel.Chaney@acxiom.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:53 PM To: Carpenter, Tom Cc: Dawson, Cindy; Bozynski, Tony; Moore, Bruce; Mann, Bill; Beebe, Shayla; max@arktimes.com; knetterstrom@arkansasonline.com Subject: RE: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission Mr. Carpenter, I am obviously disappointed. I do not believe we are being treated as fairly as Deltic Timber was treated by your office. The commission still hasn't even bothered to change their meeting locations on their website. This is what it says today: Meetings are held on the 2nd floor every other Thursday 4:00 PM at 500 West Markham Street, Board of Directors Chambers in City Hail http://www.littlerock.org/Ci.tyCommissions/Detail.as.ox?ID=24 In an effort to give citizens a fighting chance against developers and their attorneys, you think they city could at least make it easy for us to find a public meeting. The web has become the place to go for information and the staff has failed to keep that information current. I am disappointed that you didn't take this complaint seriously. Sincerely, Rachel Chaney From: Carpenter, Tom[mailto:TCarpenter@littlerock.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 1:34 PM To: Chaney Rachel - rchane Cc: Dawson, Cindy; Bozynski, Tony; Moore, Bruce; Mann, Bill; Beebe, Shayla Subject: RE: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission Importance: High Dear Ms. Rachel, The information that I have is that there were signs and notices on the relocation of the Planning Commission meeting. There was one other person that I wanted my staff to interview before we sent out a response to the City Manager. The person has been out of town, but I will have my staff complete that interview this week. From what we have gathered, however, there is nothing that would change the action of the Planning Commission. Of course, you are free to raise this issue, as well as any others, before the Board of Directors when it considers the overall application. Tom The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 4/ 16/2009 Page 2 of 2 communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. 4/16/2009 Page 1 of 1 Bozynski, Tony From: Carpenter, Tom Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 2:34 PM To: Chaney Rachel - rchane Cc: Dawson, Cindy; Bozynski, Tony; Moore, Bruce; Mann, Bill; Beebe, Shayla; max@arktimes.com; knetterstrom@arkansasonline.com Subject: RE: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission Importance: High Dear Ms. Chaney, The website was supposed to have been changed by now, that is one of the things that were immediately discussed after your last email. However, there were several notices that were published, in one form or another. In the instance that you cite, it is not a question of whether the meeting could be found, it was a matter of when the meeting was found. I suppose that if the gentleman had come to City Hall earlier, he would have learned earlier about the relocation of the meeting. I know that there was signage to that effect. In terms of his trying to address the Commission during another person's appearance at the podium, that action is simply not acceptable. The Board of Directors, and I suspect the Commission, from time to time call on two or more speakers — e.g., when both speakers are owners of the property they seek to rezone — but, I have seen persons called out of order for attempting to do so. It appears that this is what happened on the occasion that you mention. In any event, this situation is not like the zoning request that was made. The question answered before was whether it was appropriate to reconsider a particular issue, through a consolidation of the issues, that the Board of Directors had not sent back for reconsideration. The opinion that we gave is that property owners are entitled to notice -- under the Due Process Clause and because the rights of property are held higher than other rights under the Arkansas Constitution -- of what exactly is to be discussed. In this instance, the additional hearing broke the matter into three different parts, and each part was voted upon separately, which is what was expected at the first hearing. If it had not been divided into three different parts, then the property owner would have been on notice of that fact and could address the issue accordingly. The failure to provide this notice to the property owner is what created the problem. This case will not be presented to the Board of Directors as one for which there was opposition. It will be presented publicly (probably at the Robinson Convention Center in Room 102, but I caution you to check with the City Manager's office [371-4510] on the date of the meeting to make sure), and all comments can be made, and will be considered by the Board of Directors. As I am sure you are aware, on March 31, the Board of Directors had an application before it to allow a McDonald's near an entrance to Chenal off of Highway 10. The Planning Commission had recommended approval, and the staff followed that recommendation. The Board of Directors denied the rezoning. My point is that there is no final decision on the matter you mention until the Board of Directors acts. Therefore, I recommend that anyone who wishes to speak against this application be at the meeting. Tom 4/ 16/2009 City Commissions: Little Rock Planning Commission Page 3 of 3 (501) 455-4701 board@littlerock,org Term Expires: 12-31-2008 © 2008 by City of Little Rock. All rights Reserved. Aristotle Web Design Services http://www.littlerock.org/CityConunissions/Detail.aspx?ID=24 4/16/2009 City Commissions: Little Rock Planning Commission Page 2 of 3 �u CONTACT: Dana Carney City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4790 Current Members Pam Adcock 6205 Hinkson Road Little Rock, AR 72209 (501) 568-3398 Term Expires: 11-1-2009 J.T. Ferstl Affiliated Real Estate Appraisers of AR 621 East Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72202 (501) 375-1439 jtferstl@comcast.net Term Expires: 11-1-2010 Candice Smith 2216 Scott Street Little Rock, AR 72206 (501)258-7235 Smithcs 2003@yahoo.com Term Expires: 11-01-2011 Troy Laha Laha Engineers, Inc. 6602 Baseline Road, "E" Little Rock, AR 72209 (501)565-7384 Term Expires: 11-1-2011 Obray Nunnley 1708 South Taylor Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501)960-4287 obray@aol.com Term Expires: 11-1-2011 Jerry Meyer 3001 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72205 (501)660-4100 jerry@jerrymeyeragency.com Term Expires: 11-1-2009 Billy Rouse Business Address: Stoney Developers, LLC 955 Carson Cove - suite A Conway, AR 72034 (501) 329-5989 (501) 328-3380 (Fax) (501) 944-8198 (Cell) Term Expires: 11-01-2011 William F. Rector, Jr. 4322 "I" Street Little Rock, AR 72205 (501) 664-6579 wfr@pa.net Term Expires: 11-1-2010 Chauncey Nick Taylor (Chair) 401 West Capitol Street, Suite #600 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 377-4557 chauncey.taylor@centerpointenergy.com Term Expires: 11-30-2009 William Changose 106 Buckland Place Little Rock, AR 72223 (501)367-8012 Term Expires: 11-01-2011 Jeff Yates 1701 Centerview Drive, Suite #201 Little Rock, AR 72211 (501) 228-5700 (501) 227-0280 (Fax) jyates@irwinpartners.com Term Expires: 11-1-2010 B.J. Wyrick (Ex-Officio) (Little Rock City Board of Directors) 11001 Alexander Road Mabelvale, AR 72103 http://www.littlerock.org/CityCommissions/Detail.aspx?ID=24 4/16/2009 City Commissions: Little Rock Planning Commission Page 1 of 3 'A' V 4S e �;I�t ission or Task Force Little Rock Planning �nmission The Little Rock Planning Commission was created by Little Rock City Coi eleven (11) members serve three (3)-year terms. The duties of the Commission are to promote public --ffv Commissions interest and understanding of long-range, coordinated municipal planning; to review proposed subdivisions; and to make zoning recommendations to the Little Rock City Board of Directors. Members of the Planning Commission are appointed by the Little Rock City Board of Directors and consist of one (1) member selected by the Little Rock School Board and approved by the Little Rock City Board of Directors. Ordinance No. 15,782 provides for one (1) member to reside outside the City Limits within the three (3)-mile planning jurisdiction. M�-eti-n a held on the 2"d floor every other T 4 UO PM at 500 West Markham Street, B� _ rs in City Hall Notation: Regularly_sched led_meetings of the Little_ Rock_ Planning_ Commission and Board of Adjustment will_be held in the Robinson Center until further notice (contact Planning & Development Department €4r raom,_number.). For More Information Dana Carney, Zoning and Subdivisions City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 371-4790 dcarney@littlerock.org AUTHORITY: Little Rock City Code, Section 23-26, 27 TERM: Three (3) Years MEMBERS: Eleven (11) DUTIES: To promote public interest and understanding of long-range, coordinated municipal planning; to review proposed subdivisions; and to make zoning recommendations to the Little Rock City Board of Directors. SELECTION: The Little Rock City Board of Directors appoints Members. One (1) member is a representative selected by the Little Rock School Board and approved by the Little Rock City Board of Directors. MEETINGS: Every Other Thursday Regularly scheduled meetings of the Little Rock Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment will be held in the Robinson Center until further notice (contact Planning & Development Department for room number). V Meetings are at �19 http://www.littlerock.org/CityCommissions/Detail.aspx?ID=24 4/16/2009 Page 1 of 2 Bozynski, Tony From: Chaney Rachel - rchane [Rachel.Chaney@acxiom.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 9:45 AM To: Carpenter, Tom Cc: Dawson, Cindy; Bozynski, Tony Subject: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission April 7, 2009 Re: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission at its April 2, 2009 meeting. Dear Mr. Carpenter, On behalf of the Hillsborough subdivision, I am protesting the manner in which the public was not notified of the change of location of the April 2, 2009, meeting of the Little Rock Planning Commission. The meeting was moved from its regular meeting place at Little Rock City Hall to a room in the basement of Robinson Auditorium without any public notification. On the day of the meeting, the Little Rock Planning Commission's website stated: "Meetings are held on the 2nd floor every other Thursday 4:00 PM at 500 West Markham Street, Board of Directors Chambers in City Hall." In fact, the website states this exact same text today. But it is my understanding that the meeting will take place at an alternate location until the elevator is repaired at City Hall, which is expected to take several months. The Hillsborough neighborhood has been actively involved in all Little Rock Planning Commission meetings regarding the Rahling Road Land Use and Zoning Application (LU 08-10-02; Z8165-A). Our representative, David Laumer, was prepared to address the Little Rock Planning Commission at the April 2, 2009, meeting. But Mr. Laumer went to Little Rock City Hall, where he assumed the meeting would be held. He saw a sign at City Hall directing him to Robinson. In his own words, here is what happened: "I did the whole Rocky Balboa deal on the stairs and then went around the side and wandered around until I found someone who could direct me. I never saw a sign anywhere at Robinson. The insiders knew where to go and nobody thought of the rest of us." Needless to say, Mr. Laumer was late for the meeting. When he attempted to address the Little Rock Planning Commission, he was told that the opposition's time was up. Casey Tucker, representing the Villages of Wellington, was asked to return to the podium to answer a question and Mr. Laumer joined her. When Mr. Laumer attempted to answer the question, he was told by Planning Commission Director Rector that he was "out of order." The Arkansas Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (A.C.A. 25-19-101) requires "the time and place of each regular meeting shall be furnished to anyone who requests the information." Mr. Laumer has attended each Little Rock Planning Commission meeting regarding the Rahling Road rezoning issue. He is notified by the Little Rock Planning Commission of upcoming meetings regarding this issue. But he was not notified of the change of location. Attorney General Winston Bryant addressed the subject of changing the location of a public meeting in a Nov. 18, 1997, attorney general opinion. In that opinion, Mr. Bryant found "whether the meeting in question is a regular meeting or a special meeting, notification to those who have requested it is required." Mr. Laumer has filled out the Little Rock Planning Commission notification card. 4/7/2009 Page 2 of 2 On March 5, 2009, you sent a letter to Tony Bozynski, director of Planning and Development, directing him to hold a new hearing on the amendments filed by the applicant regarding the Rahling Road zoning issue. On that same day, you sent a letter to John Spivey, attorney for the applicant, notifying him that "unfortunately, there was some kind of misunderstanding in my office as to the conclusion as to what the Commission should consider." It is my opinion that there was also a misunderstanding about the location of the Planning Commission meeting which unfairly prevented Mr. Latimer from addressing the Planning Commission. I hope you will treat this complaint with the same fairness that you treated Mr. Spivey's complaint about the Planning Commission's review of the entire application rather than just the proposed amendments. Sincerely, Rachel O'Neal Chaney 13900 Beckenham Drive, Little Rock, AR 72212 312-2205 (home) 252-7436 (work) 837-2434 (cell) Rachel Chaney I Copy Writer Acxiom Global Marketing 501-252-7436 office 1 501-837-2434 cell 1 501-252-1854 fax 601 East Third I Little Rock, AR, 72201 1 Country I www.acxiom._com global interactive marketing services 4/7/2009 Page 1 of 1 Bozynski, Tony From: Chaney Rachel - rchane [Rachel.Chaney@acxiom.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 2.45 PM To: Carpenter, Tom Cc: Dawson, Cindy; Bozynski, Tony; Moore, Bruce Subject: RE: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission Mr. Carpenter, Thank you for looking into this, No one in my neighborhood was aware of the location change until right before the meeting. I haven't seen any signs or notices about the location change and those who get regular communications about this issue from the Planning Department staff did not get any notification. I found out about the room change when I received an email from a neighbor about an hour before the meeting. That neighbor said he called to get directions and was told about the location change. First, I checked the Planning Commission website, which still listed City Hall. Then I then called the planning department to confirm the location. When I was told of the change, I immediately sent out emails to everyone I could think of, including Mr. Laumer, Unfortunately, he did not get my email. If that neighbor had not called, we would have all been late, Thanks again for your help, Rachel Chaney From: Carpenter, Tom[mailto:TCarpenter@littlerock.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:32 AM To: Chaney Rachel - rchane Cc: Dawson, Cindy; Bozynski, Tony; Moore, Bruce Subject: RE: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission Importance: High Dear Ms. Chaney, There have been signs and notices for some time that the City's meetings would be held in a different location- Your comment about the website notification is new to me, and I will have it reviewed by my staff. When this review is completed, I will be in touch. Tom Carpenter The information contained in this communication is confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please resend this communication to the sender and delete the original message or any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. 4/8/2009 Boz nski, Ton From: Langley, Susan Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 12:43 PM To: Bozynski, Tony; Malone, Walter Subject: Fw: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission Importance: High Have you changed the wording on the Planning Commission Meeting agendas, or on that section of your webpages? I will also add it to the main calendar on the front page. Was there no sigjnage up directing people? Susan Langley City of Little Rock City Manager's Office (501) 244-5468 Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld -----Original Message ----- From: Carpenter, Tom To: Moore, Bruce; Langley, Susan CC: Mann, Bill Sent: Tue Apr 07 11:35:38 2009 Subject: FW: Protest of proceedings before the Little Rock Planning Commission Dear Bruce, Protest of proceedings before ., Please see the attached complaint. My staff will look into this matter in terms of the scope of the notice provided to the public. I reviewed the City website and noticed that on the calendar there is a clear statement as to when certain meetings are held, and where they are held. However, there is not a bold statement right on the website that notes that the Board room is shut down for meetings until the elevator is fixed. If it can be done, it might be appropriate to do so just to avoid this kind of complaint. Tom 1 II. CONSENT APPROVAL: (CONTINUED) 5'. Z-6828-C Aloft Hotel — Conditional Use Permit 1900 Peachtree Drive r Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to allow the hotel subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. 2. Signage is to comply with that allowed in office zones. No roof sign is permitted. 6. Z-8440 Doyne Duplexes — Conditional Use Permit 4703, 4707 and 4711 Frazier Pike Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. 7. Z-8441 Arkansas Baptist College Parking Lot — Conditional Use Permit 1504 — 15 10 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Staff recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use Permit subject to compliance with the comments and conditions outlined in Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the agenda staff report. Staff recommends approval of variances to allow the monumental entry sign and to allow reduced parking stall depth and driveway width. Approval of the entry sign is subject to Public Works Traffic Engineering approval for sight - distance. 2 II. CONSENT APPROVAL: (CONTINUED) 8. Z-8442 Arkansas Baptist College Student Services Center Offices — Conditional Use Permit 1519 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit subject to compliance with the following conditions: 1. Use of the structure is to be limited to Arkansas Baptist College and the student services described in this application. 2. A six-foot tall wood privacy fence is to be installed on the north property line unless the college purchases the property adjacent to the north prior to occupancy of this property. Staff recommends approval of a variance to allow off -site parking. 9. Amendment to Chapter 36, Section 36-203.(g) to extend the sunset provision on LRSD portable classrooms. Staff recommends approval of the Ordinance Amendment to extend the Sunset Provision to July 19, 2014. 10. A-318 Independence Farms North Annexation, part of SW'/4 Section 36, T-2-N, R-14-W, some 3.23 Acres at 17424 Kanis Road. No Concerns or issues have been raised about the requested annexation. Staff is recommending approval. 3 III. REGULAR AGENDA: `I LU08-19-02 Land Use Plan Amendment — Chenal Planning District, located on the East side of Rahling Road, South of Pebble Beach Drive, a change from Low Density Residential and Single-family to Multi Family,, Corn ner�cial, Office, Single Family and Open Space. Z-8165-A Revision to previously approved rezoning application, located on the East side of RIling Road, South of Pebble Beach Drive.ti �- Viic; I Z-8443 Rezoning from R-2 to C-3 � •�,� 6104 Nova Lane 11. Presentation of the Downtown Frame ork Plan A. MSP2008 Master Street Plan Update -A ❑ptioll of Master Street Plan for Little Rock Planning Jurisdiction 1+ U-1 '4_1 (C�1) '. EDWARD L- WRIGHT (1903-1977) ROBERT S. LINDSEY (1913-1991) ALSTON JENNINGS (19l7-2004) JOHN G. LILE GORDON S. RATHER, JR. ROGER A. GLASGOW ALSTON JENNINGS, JR, JOHN R. TISDALE JOHN WILLIAM SPIVEY Ill LEE J. MULDROW N.M, NORTON CHARLES T, COLEMAN EDWIN L. LOWTHER, JR. GREGORY T. JONES BETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER McSPADDEN JOHN D. DAVIS JUDY SIMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COX, IR. TROY A. PRICE KATHRYN A. PRYOR J. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK JERRY J. SALLINGS WILLIAM STUART JACKSON' MICHAEL D. BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTER KYLE R. WILSON WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 • FAX (501) 376-9442 903 NORTH 47TH STREET, SUITE 101 ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756 (479) 986-0888 • FAX (479) 986-8932 www.wlj.com Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310 jspivey@wlj.com Reply to Little Rock Office May 19, 2009 Honorable Mark Stodola, Mayor Honorable Joan Adcock Honorable Brad Cazort Honorable Gene Fortson Honorable Erma Hendrix Honorable Stacy Hurst Honorable Michael Keck Honorable Dr. Dean Kumpuris Honorable Ken Richardson Honorable Doris Wright Honorable B.J. (Brenda) Wyrick Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock City Hall 500 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1400 C. TAD BOHANNON J. CHARLES DOUGHERTY M. SEAN HATCH I. ANDREW VINES MI CHELLE M, KAEMMERLING SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRI CK D. WILSON DAVID P. GLOVER REGINA A- YOUNG PAUL D. MORRIS DA VID E. JOHNSON P. DELANNA PAD I LLA EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG CALEY B. VO GARY D. MARTS, JR. ERIC BERGER IOHNATHAN D. HORTON KATHRYN M. IRBY JEFFREY D. WOOD BRIAN J. McNAMARA CHESTER H. LAUCK, III LANE A. KIM ADRIENNE L. JUNG KRISTEN ASLUYTER ER IN S. BR.OGDON OF COUNSEL RONALD A. MAY ISAAC A. SCOTT, JR. BRUCE R. LINDSEY JUDY ROBINSON WILBER J AMES R. VAN DOVER ELGIN R. CLEMONS, JR. CHARLES S. BOHANNON Hand Delivery RE: Consideration of Ordinances authorizing Land Use Plan Amendments and Rezoning of Acreage abutting Rahling Road and Amendments to Master Street Plan for Construction of Beckenham and Wellington Plantation Drives Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Applicants, the Agar Shuffield Joint Venture and Deltic Timber Corporation, we appreciate the privilege and opportunity to present for your consideration three additional voluntary amendments which either further limit or restrict development within the property which is the subject of the ordinances before you tonight or impose upon the Applicants additional obligations for construction of major infrastructure improvements. These further agreements were reached within the past few days as a result of continuing discussions among members of the Board of Directors, residents in adjacent neighborhoods and the Applicants. We believe that these additional proposals add value to the overall plan and address concerns about traffic and density. We A 817527-v1 WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP May 19, 2009 Page 2 respectfully ask the Board to consider further amendment of the land use an zoning a din ces� )„ follows: 1. The Applicants agree that development of the approximately 20-acre 03 general office site (formerly designated as an MF18 Tract) will be limited to no more than 170,000 square feet. This change is consistent with assumptions employed by Peters & Associates in the development of the traffic study required by the City as a condition for consideration of the proposed land use amendments and rezonings. 2. In our letter to the Planning Commission dated January 28, 2009, a number of limitations upon development within the 03 general office zones were included. Among those was an agreement by the Applicants that the maximum size of any office building would be limited to a footprint of 20,000 square feet per floor and a height of no more than three stories for a total area of 60,000 square feet in any one office building. After further discussions, the Applicants have agreed to modify this limitation and further limit the height of any single office building to no more than two stories with a footprint of no more than 20,000 square feet per story for a maximum of 40,000 square feet per single office building. In addition, and response to concerns about traffic on the proposed Beckenham Drive and Wellington Plantation Drive, the Applicants have agreed to construct, subject to approval by the City's Public Works Department, traffic circles at the intersections of Beckenham Drive and Wellington Plantation Drive and at or near the current northern terminus of Plantation Drive before it enters the Subject Property. Construction and development of these traffic calming devices }}} would be in addition to the commitments previously made by the Applicants in connection with the approval of the amendments to the Master Street Plan by the Planning Commission on October 2, 2008 and on April 2, 2009. The Applicants request that the ordinance which amends the existing Master Street Plan be further amended to reflect these commitments. If you have any questions concerning any of these proposals, we will be present and pleased to explain them in greater detail on Tuesday evening. Cordially, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP Q A'rLo Um William Spivey I Attorneys for the District JWS Jlh 817527-vi 3. EDWARD L. WRIGHT 11903-1917) ROBE RT S. LI N D S EY (1913-1991) ALSTON JENNINGS (1917-2004) JOHN G. LILE GORDON 5, RATHER, JR, ROGER A. GLASGOW ALSTON TEN NINGS, JR, IOHN R. TISDALE JOHN WILLI AM SPIV EY III LEE J. MULDROW N.M_ NORT0N CHARLES T. COLEMAN EDWIN L. LOWTHER. JR, GREGO RY T. JON ES B ETTINA E. BROWNSTEIN WALTER M�SPADDF.N JOHN D. DAVIS IUDY STMMONS HENRY KIMBERLY WOOD TUCKER RAY F. COXJR. TROY A. PRICE KATHRYN A: PRYOR 1. MARK DAVIS CLAIRE SHOWS HANCOCK TERRY J. SALLINGS W ILLIAM 3TUART JACKSON MICHAEL D- BARNES STEPHEN R. LANCASTFR KYLE R. WILSON EXHIBIT 11111 C TnD BOHANNON WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP 1,- HANLES DCHGHERTY ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 2300 LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 • FAX (501) 376-9442 903 NORTH 47TH STREET, SUITE 101 ROGERS, ARKANSAS 72756 (479) 986-0888 • FAX (479) 986-8932 www.wij.com Writer's Direct Dial No. 501-212-1310 jSpiYey@Wlj_com Reply to Little Rock Office January 28, 2009 Honorable Chauncey Taylor, Chairman Members of Little Rock Planning Commission City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: Item Nos. LU08-19-02; Z8165-A and MSP08-01 Dear Chairman Taylor and Members of the Commission: 1, ANDREW VINES M I CHELLE M. KAEMMERLTNG SCOTT ANDREW IRBY PATRICK D, WILSON DA VID P_ GLOVER REGI NA A. YOUNG PAUL D. M0RRIS DAVID E. 70 HNSON P. DELANNA PADILLA EDWARD RIAL ARMSTRONG CALEY B. VO GA RY D. MARTS, JR- ERIC BERGER 10 HN AT HAN D. HORTON KATHRYN M. IRBY JEFFREY D. WOOD BRIAN 1. M�NAMARA CHESTER H. LAUCK. III JANE A. KIM ADR, ENNE L. IUNG KRI5TEN A. SL UYTER ERIN S. 8 R0 GDON OF COUNSFL A RONLD A MAY ISAAC A. SCOTT, IR. BRUCE R. LINDSEY CHARLES C. PRICE IUDY ROBINSON WILBER I AMES R. VAN DOVER ELGIN R. CLEMONS, IR. CHARLES 5, BOHANNON Hand Delive We are attorneys for the Applicants ("Applicant") in connection with the above identified items and we are contacting you today on their behalf. At the October 2, 2008, Regular Meeting of Little Rock Planning Commission, the above identified items were presented for your consideration. All three items were approved by a majority of the Commission. Subsequent to Commission approval, and following continuing discussions with members of various property owners' associations and individual residents, Items Z-8165-A and Item LU08-19-02 were referred - back to the Commission, at the request of the Applicant, by the City Board of Directors for consideration of an amendment to the pending application. In short, the amendment requests revision of the currently approved "MF18" zoning for the approximate 20 acre tract in the northern portion of the overall 134 acre parcel to an "0-3" designation, This matter was scheduled to come before the Commission -at its meeting on December 18, 2008, however the Applicant sought and received approval for deferral when it learned that only seven members of the Commission would attend the December 8, 2008 meeting. Prior to the December 8, 2008 meeting, and in the weeks since that time, the Applicant has continued its discussions with members of the nearby neighborhoods and, more specifically, the Chenal Ridge Property Owner's Association ("CRPOA"), and has reached a set of i January 28, 2009 Page 2 understandings with the CRPOA which will result in the CRPOA's endorsement of the pending application, subject to further modifications. Discussions with at least one other POA are ongoing and it is the Applicant's hope that further understandings may be reached ultimately with that POA. The purpose of this letter is to outline for the Commission the commitments which have previously been made by the Applicant and the additional agreements reached through further negotiations and discussions with the CRPOA. In the following paragraphs we will outline these modifications for your ZD further consideration. I. First, we will address item MSP08-01, which was approved by a unanimous vote of Commission on October 2, 2008, and for which no subsequent amendments or modifications are sought. At the October 2, 2008 meeting, the Applicant submitted three commitments to the City which were read into the record and were made a part of the application at the request of the Applicant. These commitments included, as they were read into the record on October 2, 2008, the following: "1. To immediately commence the design for Beckenham, Wellington Plantation and the completion of Rahling Road adjacent to the subject property and will commence construction of all streets, stormdrainage and related infrastructure as soon as practically possible allowing for all necessary governmental approvals. 4(2. To contribute up to $325,000 for c o t e port on of Beckenham outside of the subject property upon conditions that: (a) the City acquire the right-of-way for that portion of the street; and (b) the City cooperate with Deltic in the design and approval of plans for Beckenham such that construction of the entire street and related infrastructure may be accomplished as a part of a single project thus resulting in cost savings through the design, engineering and simultaneous construction of the entire street and related infrastructure. 3. To include as part of the Master Street Plan construction and installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Beckenham/Plantation Drives and Rahling Road." (In subsequent discussion at the October 2, 2008 meeting, it was mentioned that the City's Public Works' staff might prefer to install a traffic circle at the intersection of Beckenham/Plantation Drives and Rahling Road instead of traffic signals. The Applicant agreed that it would include construction of a traffic circle in lieu of traffic signals at that location, if requested by the City.) January 28, 2009 Page 3 No other proposed amendments or modifications to Item MSP08-01 have been offered nor are any presented for further consideration in this communication. 1I. Items Z-8165-A and LU08-19-02 were essentially considered together at the October 2, 2008 meeting. Prior to the October 2, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, the Applicant voluntarily amended its application to eliminate certain "permitted" uses and "conditional" uses from those otherwise allowable in the "C-3" zone for which approval was sought from the Planning Commission. A list of the remaining uses was submitted to you at the October 2, 2008 Planning Commission meeting, and was made a part of the item as approved by the Commission. 1. As a result of the Applicant's continuing discussions with members of the neighborhoods and representatives of the CRPOA, we have learned that among the most important concerns of the neighbors is that no "big box" uses or developments that could yield high traffic volume be located within the "C-3" or "0-3" areas. After exploring and discussing these concerns with representatives of the CRPOA we have prepared a further modification to the list of "permitted" and "conditional" uses and added certain other limitations upon development within the "C-3" and "0-3" areas and seek now to further amend the application to be consistent with these further modifications. Attached as part of this letter as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the "C-3" permitted and conditional uses which has been marked to illustrate the Applicant's initial voluntary limitations and to show those further limitations to uses in the "C- 3" zone. The list of those permitted and conditional uses which were voluntarily eliminated as part of the application approved at the October 2, 2008, meeting are shown in Exhibit "A" with a "single strike through line." In addition to the uses which were initially voluntarily eliminated by the Applicant, a further list of changes is highlighted with a "double strike through line" along with certain further limitations which have voluntarily been agreed to by the Applicant. The additional limitations in the C-3 zone may be summarized as follows: The Applicant has agreed to eliminate the following additional "permitted" uses: Itemh.,Bar, lounge or tavern; Item q. Cigar or tobacco stores uses are eliminated but the "candy store" use remains; Item yyy. Service Station. To the list of conditional uses in the "C-3" zone, the Applicant voluntarily agrees to add "Item x. Convenience food store with gas pumps," which would otherwise be a "permitted use." January 28, 2009 Page 4 From the list of conditional uses in the "C-37" zone, the Applicant agrees to eliminate the following: Item i. Home Center; and Item j. Eating place with drive-in service. In addition to the "use" limitations outlined above, the Applicant also commits that no single retail use will exceed 20,000 square feet. The Applicant believes that this limitation evidences its recognition and intention that the proposed future development be compatible with the existing neighborhoods surrounding the area. 2. With regard to those areas previously designated "0-3" and the area formerly designated as "MF18" for which the Applicant seeks an amendment to "0-3," the Applicant submits Exhibit "B" which shows a list of uses in the "0-Y zones which it has voluntarily agreed to eliminate from the permitted, conditional and accessory uses. These items are shown on the attached list with a "double strike through line." Applicant has also agreed that "Item z. School (business)"; and "Item aa. School (public or denominational)" will become "conditional" uses instead of "permitted" uses. In addition, the Applicant has agreed that the footprint of any single build than 20,000 square feet and that no structure in an e - zan' stories in heig will not be more III. In addition to the limitations set forth in Section II above, the applicant has further agreed to or acknowledges the following development criteria, limitations or provisions which shall apply to the various tracts, as appropriate: 1. All "C-3," "0-3" and "MF18" tracts adjacent to the single family residential tracts, shall include and comply with the City landscaping ordinance including, without limitation, construction of landscaping buffers around the perimeters of each as provided in the City's zoning code. 2. Access to the "MF18" property will b , limited to access directly from Rahling or through the adjacent "C-3" or "0-3" areas_ There will be no direct access from Wellington Plantation Drive unless the City requires an emergency or secondary entrance to the property from Wellington Plantation Drive. 3_ All commercial, office and multifamily tracts within the overall development will be subject to site plan review by the City. January 28, 2009 Page 5 4. The Chenal Valley Commercial Bill of Assurance will be extended to cover all commercial, office and multifamily areas to insure the appropriate architectural review and approval as in all other commercial, office and multifamily areas within Chenal Valley. 5. All commercial, office and multifamily tracts will be covered by the Chenal Valley Property Owners' Association to insure that each is maintained and operated in a manner consistent with Chenal POA standards. 6. Deltic agrees to restrict all R-2 areas to single family residential use by restrictive covenants or other appropriate method. 7. With respect to Deltic property west of Rattling Road, Deltic commits that except for streets on the Master Street Plan, no neighborhoods lying west of Rahling Road will be connected to Rahling Road adjacent to the subject property and extending north to Pebble Beach. 8. The Applicant will fund and construct all necessary drainage and detention infrastructure along Rahling, Beckenham and Wellington Plantation through the subject 134 acres. These agreements are offered in good faith and as further measure of the Applicant's intention to recognize the need to carefully monitor development within the subject 134 acre tract. Please consider this the Applicant's request for amendment of its pending application in recognition that all requested uses and further modifications are less intense than the applications as approved by the Planning Commission at its October 2, 2008, meeting. Sincerely, WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP Jo n William Spivey III JWS:jlh Enclosures (2) aA a me": (Eliminated by Deltic w/ original proposal) (Eliminated in Jan. 2009) EXHIBIT "A" Sec. 36-301. C-3 General commercial district. (a) Purpose and intent. The C-3 general commercial district shall be applied to the broad range of retail uses which comprise the commercial function of the city including groupings of freestanding commercial structures. This section applies to such district. Permitted uses include most types of retail activity except those involving open displays of merchandise and those which generate large volumes of vehicular traffic or are otherwise incompatible with the purpose and intent of the C-3 general commercial district. Retail areas zoned C-3 general commercial shall be generally concentrated as to geographical configuration. It is anticipated, however, that in some situations, change to another commercial or office classification may be appropriate to permit the transition of strip retail areas to other productive forms of land use. It is the intent of these regulations that the C-3 district be concentrated at the intersection of arterial streets. Extension of this district along major arterial streets in linear fashion shall be discouraged. Outdoor display of merchandise is allowed under carefully controlled conditions. (b) Development criteria. All commercial uses shall be restricted to closed buildings, except parking lots, seasonal and temporary sales per section 36-298.4, and the normal PUMP island services of service station operations. In addition, outdoor display of merchandise is allowed in an area equal to one-half ( 1/2) of the facade area of the front of the building. Certain seasonal or special event sales may be allowed when the owner has requested a permit for such activity in conjunction with the privilege license application. The permitting authority shall review the owner's plan or placement of merchandise in order to assure that obstruction of drives, walks, required parking and fire lanes does not occur. In no case shall full-time static open display be permitted. (c) Use regulations. (1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are as follows: b. Animal clinic (enclosed). c. Antique shop, with repair. d. Appliance repair. f. Bakery or confectionery shop. g. Bank or savings and loan office. i. Barber and beauty shop. j . Beverage shop. k. Book and stationery store. 1. Butcher shop. n. Camera shop. o. Catering, commercial_ p. Church. DOCS-#798652-vI-Del tic - letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC (Eliminated by Deltic w/ original proposal) (Eliminated in Jan. 2009) 4 candy store. r. Clinic (medical, dental or optical). s. Clothing store. a Moved to Conditional Use z. [Reserved]. aa. Custom sewing and millinery. dd. Drugstore or pharmacy. ee. Duplication shop. ff. Eating place without drive-in service. bh. Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization. B . Fire station. kk. Florist shop. 11. Food store. inm. Furniture store. oo. Handicraft, ceramic sculpture or similar artwork. pp. Hardware or sporting goods store. qq. Health studio or spa. rr. Hobby shop. On u uu. Jewelry store. vv. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting. ww. . Key shop . YY- zz. Laundry, domestic cleaning. aaa. Lawn and garden center, enclosed. bbb. Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use. d ggg. Office (general and professional). DOCS-#798652-vI-Del tic= _letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC (Eliminated by Deltic wl original proposal) (Eliminated in Jan. 2009) iii. Office equipment sales and service. jjj. Optical shop. kkk. Paint and wallpaper store. b ruin. Pet shop. 000. Photography studio. r � ' sss. Retail uses not listed (enclosed). vvv. Scheel TL www. Seasonal and temporary sales, outside. zzz. Shoe repair. aaaa. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors). c.]cjcdc.TTailor. Y��•a1i'. +�CQ"mil Aiii� � ffff`7c=xwacv. hhhh. Travel bureau. (2) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: a. Ambulance service post. b. A- uy...�, shap d. Auto parts, sales with limited motor vehicle parts installation. . tr b• n. ALL xi.0 ova a,+.++ k. Glass or glazer. Installation, repair and sales. m. Landscape service. DOCS-#798652-v1-Deltic_ _letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC . Uln.-t rilrro.a� t. Service station with limited motor vehicle repair. y. Upholstery shop, furniture. aa. Convenience food store with gas pumps. DOCS-#798652-vl-Deltic_-_letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor. DOC indicates Deltic has .7 agreed to eliminate the use in Jan. 2009. EXHIBIT "B" Sec. 36-281, 0-3 general office district. (a) Purpose and intent. The 0-3 general office district is established to accommodate offices and associated administrative, executive and- professional uses in new and existing structures together with specified institutional and accessory uses. This section applies to such district. The 0-3 district is characterized by freestanding buildings and ancillary parking, and shall be limited to arterial street locations in developed areas of the city and other carefully selected areas where public utilities, community facilities and other public services are adequate to support general office development. (b) Use regulations. (1) Permitted uses. Permitted uses are as follows: a. Bank or savings and loan office. b. Church. c. Clinic (medical, dental or optical). a-�� asrr` �i�--rz-cv s csocvr� i j . Duplication shop. 1. Establishment of a religious, charitable or philanthropic organization. in. Family care facility. n. Fire station. o. Governmental or private recreational uses, including but not limited to golf courses, tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, day camps and passive recreational open space. r. Library, art gallery, museum or similar public use. CUP - of- frateffig v. Office (general or professional). w. Photography studio. -80h@_045 kin�: �.. F; _ (Moved to Conditional) y. Rooming, lodging and boarding facilities. z. School (business). (Moved to Conditional) bb. Studio (broadcasting and recording). cc. Studio (art, music, speech, drama, dance or other artistic endeavors). DOCS-#798652-vl-Deltic - letter_to Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC dd. Travel Bureau.ion (2) Accessory uses. The following accessory uses are permitted only in co elr ent of with an allowable use or uses in the 0-3 district and shall not exceed ten (10) p the total floor area on the site. a. Antique shop. b. Barber and beauty shop. c. Book and stationery store. d. Camera shop. ,aa ' candy store. f. Clothing store. g. Custom sewing or millinery. h. Drugstore or pharmacy. i. Eating place without drive-in service. j. Florist shop. k. Health studio or spa. 1. Hobby shop. in. Jewelry store. n. Key shop. o. Laundry pickup station. p. Tailor shop• (3) Conditional uses. Conditional uses are as follows: a. Ambulance Service Post. b. Animal clinic (enclosed). c. Barber and beauty shops. e. Health studio or spa. f. Job printing, lithographer, printing or blueprinting. j . Orphanage. k. School (commercial, trade or craft). m. Private school, kindergarten or institution for special education. n. School (public or denominational). DOCS-#798652-vl-Deltic= letter_to_Mr_Chauncey_Taylor.DOC — Board of Directors Communication TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: BRUCE T. MOORE, CITY MANA SUBJECT: RAHLING ROAD CHANGES DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2008 The request was made at the November 10, 2008, Board of Directors Agenda Meeting for staff to provide the following information regarding the proposed changes along Rahling Road and how it relates to the Chenal Parkway Architectural Review requirements: ➢ Traffic Count for Rahling Road: The City's most current traffic count for Rahling Road was conducted in March 2008, and depicts a volume of 8,539 vehicles per day. ➢ Date Pebble Beach Drive was Opened to Rahling Road: The construction of the final section of Pebble Beach Drive was completed in March 1998 and it was opened after that date. ➢ Permitted Height in the M)=18 Zonina District: The permitted building height in MF18 is thirty-five (35) feet. ➢ Estimated Costs for Buildinq the Tym-- Coif c ors JC'7,-�ntly Shown on the Master Street Plan: has estimated that construction cost to �. complete Beckenham Dr from its western most end to Rahling Road is d�Q approximately 543,90 . The estimated construction cost to complete the �i K� Weston Pla tation/Rahling Road connection is approximately ckenham Drive and �I el 'ngton PlantUtion Drive were a ded to the Master Street Plan: Beckenham Drive has been on the Master Street Plan since at least 1979. Wellington Plantation alignment was added to the Master Street Plan in 1988 as an arterial, and in 1997, the Master Street Plan was amended to the current collector alignment for Wellington Plantation Drive. Staff reports that the buffer requirement for multi -family zoned property adjacent to single family is 6% of the average depth, with a maximum of fifty (50) feet and 70% percent of the buffer is to be left undisturbed. Under the tCity of Little Rock, Arkansas ov' 4;qw -- La'-�y applicant's proposed plan, all of the non -single family development on the 134 acre/tract will be subject to: 1. Chenal Valley Covenants and Restrictions 2. The Bill of Assurance of Chenal Valley Commercial Neighborhood 3. Design Guidelines-Chenal Valley Commercial Property 4. Review by Chenal Valley Architectural Control Committee The Chenal Valley Design guidelines address specific lot requirements, building requirements, colors and textures, mechanical equipment, paving materials and exterior lighting. The covenants, restrictions and guidelines are not enforced by the City; they are private conditions, regulated by the Chenal bill of assurance. The attached maps show the Dorado Beach connection to Hinson Road and the area that will remain R-2 Single Family if the requested re -zonings are approved. (The R-2 area within the 134 acres is cross -hatched.) During the discussion of the Master Street Plan item at the Board of Directors Agenda Meeting, staff was asked about how the collectors on the Master Street Plan would be constructed. Staff responded by saying that streets are typically constructed at the time of development through the Boundary Street Ordinance. With the request before the Board, the applicant, Deltic Timber Corporation made the following commitments at the Planning Commission Meeting to the street network: 1. Deltic will immediately begin the design for Beckenham Drive and Wellington Plantation Drive and will commence construction of both streets as soon as practically possible, allowing for all necessary governmental approvals. 2. Deltic will contribute up to $325,000 for construction of the portion of Beckenham Drive outside of the subject property upon conditions that: (a) The City acquire the right-of-way for that portion of the street; and (b) The City cooperate with Deltic in the design and approval of Beckenham Drive such that construction of the entire street and related infrastructure may be accomplished as part of a single project thus achieving cost savings through the design, engineering and simultaneous construction of the entire street and related infrastructure. There is a portion of Beckenhan Drive to the east of the property in question that has not been constructed. The $325,000 should cover the cost of a two (2)-lane roadway, which will not include full improvements. 3. To include as part of the Master Street Plan, construction and installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Beckenham Drive/Wellington Plantation Drives and Rahling Road.