Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-26 dale pekar letter1 Minyard, Brian From:Dale Pekar <dale.pekar@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:23 PM To:caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseyMboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Mayor Scott; LRzoning; Minyard, Brian Subject:Opposition to HDC 2019-023, Infill Multifamily Building at the NE Corner of 10th and Rock The Honorable Members of the Historic District Commission: Please register my opposition to subject proposal for the construction of an 18-unit Condominium at 10th and Rock. In the interest of brevity I will not repeat my previously submitted objections and those raised by Ms. McSwain, Ms. Taylor, Messrs. Pekar, M r. Hoffheimer, Mr. Schoeneman and so many others, but would offer in addition the following reasons. Dale J. Pekar 1010 Rock Little Rock, Arkansas Area residents have a rightful expectation that existing limits on development will be respected. A home purchase is normally the largest investment any American will ever make. People make those purchases mindful of the surrounding area, its existing uses, and the allowable future uses. The three lots involved in this proposal are zoned so as to allow the construction of duplexes. Cramming 18 units on 3 lots zoned for duplexes would degrade neighborhood livability and the area of influence--that's why a change in zoning would be required. Commissioners are not required to allow developers to maximize the profits on their investments. The properties can easily be developed in a manner consistent with the existing zoning. I ask you Commissioners to consider whether you would allow the construction of an 18-unit apartment building or condominium on your own blocks where you live. What would you say if fire or flood or a tornado destroyed three homes on your block, and a developer then came forward wishing to construct an 18-unit building spanning those three lots? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say "OK"? I think not. You would recognize that the character of your block, your neighborhood, your area of influence would be changed adversely. This is the exact situation we residents in the Area of Influence are facing and why we are fighting so hard against it. It is true that the Historic District Commission does not make zoning changes. However, the HDC definitely may consider that a proposal is not consistent with currently allowed zoning and that therefore a change in zoning would be required. Lest there be any confusion to this effect, Sec. 23-120(f) of Appendix G of the Guidelines makes clear that Commissioners are empowered to consider factors other than the eleven enumerated: "(f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d)." [emphasis added] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 The Staff Report of May 28, 2020 is misleading in that it makes it appear the no comments regarding this application have been received. "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application." page 11 of 49 In point of fact, numerous objections were lodged with staff prior to May 28, 2020; indeed prior to the previous Historic District Commission meeting on this proposal. The staff report needs to be redone and all the input received prior to May 28, 2020 needs to be added so that the Commissioners and all other readers are not so misinformed. This would include all public comment received prior to the earlier meeting of the Historic District Commission. This failing is particularly egregious in that public comments submitted to the Commission are not reported in the minutes of HDC meetings. Public comment is being lost to the public record of the meeting and to potential further legal proceedings. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comparisons of the project to the Cumberland Towers and Park Place "incompatible intrusions" are damning rather than vindicative. The Staff Report repeats comparisons of the project to Cumberland Towers and Park Place (as with regard to proportion and scale). However, Cumberland Towers and Park Place were singled out as being “incompatible intrusions” in the 1976 National Register of Historic Places Inventory --Nomination Form (available at: http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/National-Register- Listings/PDF/PU9768_comb_nr.pdf ) If Cumberland Towers and Park Place are now to become exemplars of allowable construction in the Historic District, then the Historic District should be dissolved as new construction may destroy the very reason for the formation of the Historic District. At the very least, any comparisons to such "incompatible intrusions" should be identified as such.