Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6615-A Staff AnalysisJUNE 15, 2006 ITEM NO.: A File No.: Owner: Applicant: Address: Description: Zoned: Z -6615-A Paul Page Dwellings, LLC William Page Wilson 1520 Rock Street Lot 7, Block 50, Original City of Little Rock Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the design provisions of Section 36-370 to allow construction of a new single family residence which does not conform to all CCRC design standards. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Vacant Lot Proposed Use of Property: STAFF REPORT Single Family Residential A. Public Works Issues: 1. Sidewalks with appropriate handicap ramps are recommended to be installed in accordance with Sec. 31-175 of the Little Rock Code and the Master Street Plan. Access ramps located at the intersection and at alley are suggested. B. Staff Analysis: The R-4 zoned property at 1520 Rock Street is currently undeveloped. The property is at the northwest corner of East 16th and Rock Streets. Some site work has taken place in preparation for construction of a new single family residence on this lot and the two (2) lots immediately to the north. The property is located within the Central City Redevelopment Corridor —Design Overlay District, which was adopted by the Board of Directors in 1999 after a JUNE 15, 2006 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T_ tornado struck the area. The Design Overlay District sets forth some design regulations which apply to all new construction in the district. The applicant proposes to construct a new one-story single family residence on the lot, as noted on the attached site plan. The proposed structure conforms to all of the area requirements of Section 36-256 of the City's Zoning Ordinance (minimum building setbacks, maximum height, etc.). The applicant is proposing the structure to have a flat roof, as noted on the attached building elevations. The majority of the exterior building finish will be brick, masonry construction, with a smaller portion of the exterior having corrugated metal siding, also shown on the elevations provided. Section 36-370(1) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires that roof pitches of less than 4:12 be prohibited in the CCRC Design Overlay District. Section 36- 370(2) requires the materials of the exterior building shell be wood, brick or a material that resembles wood. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the new single family residence to have a flat roof and a building exterior partially with corrugated metal siding. Staff does not support the requested variances. To staff's knowledge, this is the first variance application from the design standards of the Central City Re - Development Corridor -Design Review District. The standards were enacted to assure that any new structures in the area devastated by the 1999 tornado be constructed with design similar to a majority of the structures in the area. The vast majority of the structures within this area have sloped roofs, with exterior treatments of wood siding or brick. There are a few structures in the area which vary from these design standards. These structures are mostly non - single family residential structures and have existed for a number of years. Although staff typically supports infill development, staff feels that the building design as proposed could be detrimental to the area. Staff supports the efforts of this developer in providing new housing stock to the area, but feels a building design which conforms to the design overlay district would be most appropriate. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested variances from the Central City Re - Development corridor -Design Overlay District. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006) William Page Wilson was present, representing the application. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of denial. 2 JUNE 15, 2006 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (APRIL 24, 2006 CON'T.) William Page Wilson addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented a packet of photos and other information to the Board and explained why his building design would be appropriate for the area. He sited examples of flat roof construction and metal roofing/siding in the area. He gave a detailed description of the proposed building design. It was noted that the masonry construction of the facade would be Norman Brick. Chairman Francis noted that it was encouraging to see the applicant doing in -fill development in the area. He explained that he had no concerns with the partial metal exterior, but was concerned with the flat roof. In response to a question from vice-chairman Burruss, Mr. Wilson briefly described the design of the two (2) structures he was going to construct immediately to the north. There was additional discussion of the proposed building design. Mr. Wilson noted that the homes he constructed would be sold and not rented. He explained why he desired the flat roof construction. Chris Wilbourne noted that he could support the flat roof. Vice-Chiarman Burruss noted that he also supported the flat roof, noting that there are other flat roofs in the area. There was additional discussion of the variance issue. There was a motion to approve the application, as filed. The motion failed by a vote of 2 ayes, 1 nay and 2 absent. The application was automatically deferred to the May 22, 2006 Agenda due to a lack of three (3) votes on either side. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (MAY 22, 2006) Vice Chairman Burruss called the meeting to order. Roll call revealed only two (2) members present (Burruss and Wilbourn) and lack of quorum. Staff explained that no meeting could take place without a quorum, and that all applications would be transferred to the June 26, 2006 Agenda. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 15, 2006) William Page Wilson and Rick Redden were present, representing the application. There was one (1) person present in support and one (1) person present in opposition. Staff presented the item noting that the only new information was two (2) letters of support and two (2) letters of opposition. 3 JUNE 15, 2006 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 15, 2006 CON'T.) William Page Wilson addressed the Board in support of the application. He presented the Board with photos of other structures in the area. He noted that street trees would be planted along Rock Street. He explained that the immediate neighbors were in support of the application. He further explained that the proposed structure would be compatible with the area. Chairman Francis noted that the structures in the photos were there prior to the passage of the design overlay. The issue was briefly discussed. Rick Redden, AMR Architects, addressed the Board in support of the application. He explained that he had worked in the downtown area for many years. He discussed the type of structure proposed and how it would be compatible with the neighborhood. Judi Casavechia noted that the Board of Directors of the Southside Main Street Project supported the application. Gerald Turner, Downtown Little Rock CDC, addressed the Board in opposition. He noted that his organization works in the neighborhood and that they strongly support the design overlay. He explained that the CDC will be constructing four (4) houses in the area, and that three (3) of them had already been sold to young urban professionals. He stated that the sense of neighborhood could be lost if the design overlay guidelines were not met. He explained that the proposed structure would bring an industrial character to the area. Chairman Francis briefly discussed the design overlay ordinance. He expressed a concern with setting precedence with this application. He asked the other Board members for their opinions. Fletcher Hanson noted that AMR Architects had a good understanding of the downtown area. He explained that people are looking for diversity in housing in the area. He noted concern with deviation from the design overlay standards, but that he could support the flat roof construction. Vice -Chairman Burruss discussed the issue of granting variances and setting precedents. He explained that he had no problem with the flat roof, but could not support the metal siding. The issue of the proposed metal siding was discussed. Mr. Redden explained that a metal with a different profile could be used. Mr. Turner made additional comments related to the design of the building. Chris Wilbourn explained that he had reservations about he proposed metal siding, but had no problem with the flat roof. He noted that he could support the application. In JUNE 15, 2006 ITEM NO.: A (CON'T BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (JUNE 15, 2006 CON'T.) There was additional discussion related to the building design and the issues of colored metal siding and roof pitch. Mr. Turner made additional comments related to the proposed building's compatibility with the area. The issue of siding was discussed further. Mr. Wilson noted that he would amend the application and have the siding conform to the design overlay ordinance (wood, brick or a material that resembles wood). The issue was discussed briefly. Dana Carney, of the Planning Staff, explained that the flat roof issue would be an appeal of staff's determination that the roof design did not conform with the design overlay ordinance, and not a variance. The issue was briefly discussed. There was a motion to approve the appeal and allow the flat roof construction. The motion passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 nays and 1 open position. The appeal was approved for the flat roof construction only. 5