HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 2021 - Follow-up EmailsFrom: Herndon, Tim
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 1:44 PM
To: 'jeremywbrasher@gmail.com' <jeremywbrasher@gmail.com>
Cc: Floriani, Vince <VFloriani@littlerock.gov>
Subject: 515 Rice Street Improvements
Hi Jeremy. I have read through your note below, discussed it with LR engineering staff (where the
subject condition arose) and discussed with the Planning Director yesterday. Having re-focused our
attention on your variance application, I’ll leave you with the following for your consideration:
1. The street improvement we’re talking about is a code requirement. Short of possible recourse
mentioned in the notes below, this office is charged with enforcing the matter as presented in
the Z-2348-A BOA Staff Report.
2. This said, there are possible alternatives as laid out in the notes below, which will
nevertheless require continued focus and likely at least some investment on your part.
3. Because your variance is approved and the focus is now shifted to public infrastructure
improvements, I am referring you to Vince Floriani, PE whose email and contact info is below.
Best wishes as you move forward. – Tim
Tim A. Herndon, Development Manager
City of Little Rock | Planning and Development
723 W. Markham Street | Little Rock, AR 72201
Main: (501)371-4790 | Direct: (501)371-6817
Email: therndon@littlerock.gov
Website: https://www.littlerock.gov/
From: Floriani, Vince <VFloriani@littlerock.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 1:16 PM
To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov>; Spillman, Darren <dspillman@littlerock.gov>
Cc: Rossato, Ilona E. <irossato@littlerock.gov>
Subject: RE: 515 Rice Z-2348-A Variance Staff Report notes
Per Sec. 30-283, boundary street improvements are a City of Little Rock code requirement to be
constructed for issuance of a building permit for proposed developments other than single family and
two-family residences. Little Rock does not have impact fees for drainage and street improvements like
some other municipalities. The Board of Directors chose to make improvements to streets and drainage
as development occurs on the adjacent property. As properties develop along an unimproved street,
street and drainage improvements are made as the properties develop until you have a complete street.
The current owner has plans for a quiet use for the I2 zoned property but the building and the property
could be sold in the future and a much more intense use could occupy the space, by right, with a
substantial higher traffic volume. A waiver of the required boundary street improvements is required to
be approved by Planning Commission, Board of Directors, or Mayor. Additional research is required to
determine the correct appealing body.
Per Sec. 30-284, a financial hardship could be declared and cost estimates provided to Planning and
Development, Civil Engineering staff from a licensed contractor of the proposed total site development
costs and a separate cost estimate provided on the required street and drainage improvements. The
Department of Planning and Development may determine that a project involves a financial hardship
and require an in-lieu cash contribution not to exceed 15% of the estimated total development cost.
Vince Floriani, P.E.
Design Review Engineer
Little Rock Public Works-Civil Engineering
723 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
501-371-4817
vfloriani@littlerock.gov
From: J Brasher <jeremywbrasher@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 10:32 AM
To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov>
Subject: 515 Rice Z-2348-A Variance Staff Report notes
Hi Tim,
On the variance staff notes comment sheet for my project at 515 Rice was this:
A. Planning and Development Civil Engineering Comments:
1. At time of building permit, provide design of street conforming to the Master
Street Plan. Construct one-half street improvement to Rice Street including five
(5) foot sidewalks with planned development.
So initially when I saw this note on the staff report my heart sank, because after finally getting the
variance and being able to go forward with the building plan, now I would have to widen an entire street
and put in civil infrastructure, which was far more project than I had planned for and I had my
reservations about how that would even work in such an area, and why. So I thought about it a while
and I looked up a ballpark of how much materials might cost, what it could look like etc. and I decided
okay, maybe it wasn't so bad, I would try to do it anyway. So I went to David who draws up my plans and
asked him to include the street improvement in the design. Well, he didn't feel comfortable adding a
street plan into the site drawings, it was outside his expertise, so he suggested I go to a civil engineering
firm. Ok. I then called a civil engineering company, described what I was building, and sent them my
drawings and plans so far. The head engineer got back to me the next day and said "Honestly, for what
you are doing and using this for this would be overkill, it would cost probably as much or more to design
and build this street improvement as what you are trying to build. Now we could build you a
McDonald's, commercial stuff like that, but if I were you I would try and talk to someone about waiving
this requirement" So here I am, talking to someone about waiving this requirement.
I have done some more thinking and research regarding the one half street improvement. I understand
why in many cases in other areas this would be necessary but I wanted to discuss a few reasons why this
requirement should be waived in the instance of 515 Rice.
First of all I think there may be a general misunderstanding of this building project, and that is likely due
to the way I described it. I put down wood shop as use because many of the tools I will be storing and
using there are wood related, saws, etc. that I use to maintain the duplexes at 501 and 505, however I
also will be storing a project car down there and other lawn and landscaping tools. It seemed like the
closest use description of those available in the existing zoning. Essentially it will be my shop to work on
property maintenance and storage, this will be run as a shop not a storefront, there are no employees,
walk in customers, showroom, etc. The road traffic impact of the building will be negligible. I don't see
the project creating more traffic than currently exists, perhaps even less than if it were a residential
development because there would be no night traffic.
Second is purely aesthetic, a half road improvement on Rice would entail widening the road to 15.5 feet
from the center line, in the case of Rice, the entire road is only 20 feet wide, this would be extending it a
quarter of its current size for three lot lengths at the bottom of a hill. It doesn't seem to fit with the
existing character of the street and would appear very strange in the context of the rest of the street. If
street width is a concern I could run the driveway from the very corner of 6th where the street is wider.
The building will be so far off the street anyway, once I have the landscaping trees along the street it will
be somewhat hidden, which is what I am going for, it isn't a storefront so I don't need attention drawn
to it..
Third, drainage. We have tried hard in our development of Rice Street to avaid using new concrete
whenever possible. This is evident from the parking lot at 501 and 505, to the use of the existing slab at
515. My initial variance at 515 was to move construction out of the stormwater drainage which is
already a concern. A large contributing factor to the stormwater runoff problems on Rice street are
primarily due to too much paved area, particularly from the street and the trail. To widen the road and
install a sidewalk would create 1700 new square feet of concrete that would collect even more water
and a curb would divert it elsewhere, likely creating a new and worse drainage problem somewhere
else.
Lastly, regarding the sidewalk, as it stands the only other sidewalk on this block is 500 feet away on the
other side of the street and it runs for approximately three houses. For a sidewalk to be useful,
pedestrians heading south on Rice from 3rd would have to walk in the street for three houses, get on
the sidewalk on the west side of the street at 306 Rice, walk three houses, leave the sidewalk and walk
500 feet in the street, at some point crossing it, to use a 160 foot sidewalk that terminates at the
railroad tracks. There is already substantial vagrant traffic coming from the railroad tracks precisely at
the spot where the sidewalk would terminate, and while I don't have any personal problem with these
folks I would rather not pave them a path to my property.
So given all that, I am not sure what the best way to proceed here would be. I am open to suggestions. I
would like to just build the shop as I have planned so far with current zoning minus street widening,
curb, and sidewalk. I think it would be good for the neighborhood if something were built there, I could
stage improvements to the places next door at the shop and keep another set of eyes on the area. If I
can't go forward with this project I don't know who else would even want to, it's so close to the railroad,
it could sit unused another forty years. If I were to pursue getting this street building improvement note
waived, would I need to file for another variance and go through the process again?
I have even considered changing the zoning to residential and maybe building some sort of half-
apartment-half-shop space or a house with just a big building in the back like exists at the corner of 7th
and Woodrow. Would that be a better possibility? I know you can't advise people on what they should
do but i'm kind of stuck here and I'm just trying to find the best way to do this for myself and the
neighborhood.
I will give you a call in the next week or so to discuss but I wanted you to have some background in case I
forgot to mention something. Thanks,
Jeremy Brasher