HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-23 pekar matt letter1
Minyard, Brian
From:Matt Pekar <mpekar@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:00 PM
To:LRzoning
Cc:Minyard, Brian
Subject:statement regarding HDC2019-023 for May 28th meeting
Please confirm this has been received. I'd like it entered into the record for the May 28th meeting.
===
I am writing in opposition to the proposed infill at 10th and Rock, HDC2019-023.
The revised plan has improvements from the original but still fails to comply with at least four of the design
factors listed in the guidelines for this district.
1) The side yard setbacks for this proposal are not in compliance. Section V of the guideli nes, on page 33 states:
"Side Yard setbacks should be within plus or minus 10% of the average side yard setbacks within the area of
influence as measured from the property line to the nearest structure. Rear Yard setbacks should be within the
limits as prescribed by the zoning regulations having jurisdiction over the subject property"
This project does not even have side yards between the multiple lots it will cross and thus is in no way
compliant with this design factor. Most of the properties in our neighborhood have generous side yard setbacks.
This "megaplex" style of construction is completely at odds with how the rest of the area has been developed. It
is the core reason for rejecting this proposal.
2) The site coverage is not in compliance. Section V, page 33 states: "Site Coverage: Refers to the overall
percentage of a lot that is covered by building and should be consistent with the
prevailing patterns of development within the area of influence of the subject property. For example, where
areas are dominated by single family homes that exhibit front, side and rear
yards, proposed new construction should mimic this development pattern and not cover a larger
proportion of site area with building."
The proposed project is surrounded by single family homes with front, side, and rear yards. This project covers
the entire horizontal run of multiple lots with no side yards and almost no front yard space. It is utterly non-
compliant with this requirement.
3) The tall foundation height is still non-compliant. For a laugh, and to begin to understand the pushback from
the neighborhood, look at figure 49 (Section V, pg. 34) of the guidelines. That figure illustrates the degree of
compliance that is expected by the guidelines and this project is nowhere near satisfying that.
4) It turns out the fence went _back_ to being non-compliant. How can the fence not be in compliance and this
thing still gets a recommendation of approval?? I see my neighbors fence applications shut down all the time
but this cheap, ugly, right-on-the-sidewalk four foot fence gets a pass? Where is the consistency? If the grossly
out of scale proportions and spacing of this project aren't enough to reject it, at least reject it for the fact that the
fence is out of compliance!
2
The whole vibe I get from this is that single family homeowners with historic projects are expected to do
everything right, while large-scale commercial developers seeking to profit from the neighborhood can flub as
many of the design factors as they want. Immensity should not dictate acceptance.
Rejecting this non-compliant project would contribute a lot to building confidence and consistency in this city's
laws and proceedings.
Matthew Pekar
1017 Cumberland St.
Little Rock