HDC_12 12 2016Page 1 of 63
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, December 12, 2016, 5:05 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (5) in number.
Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell
Toni Johnson
Dick Kelley
Ted Holder
Lauren Frederick
Members Absent: Open Position
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Jimmy Moses
Ray Nolan
Jill Judy
Mark Brown
William Page Wilson
Approval of Minutes:
Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 2016
public hearing as submitted. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the minutes were
approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick).
Election of officers:
There was a motion to suspend the order of the agenda by Commissioner Toni Johnson.
Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes,
and 1 open position.
Commissioner Toni Johnson nominated Commissioner Dick Kelley as the Chair of the
Commission for 2017. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell nominated himself as Chair. Chair BJ
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
Page 2 of 63
Bowen called the vote. Commissioner Kelly received four votes (Bowen, Johnson, Kelly, and
Holder), Commissioner Russell received one vote (Russell), and Frederick recused.
Chair Bowen nominated Commissioner Ted Holder as the Vice-Chair of the commission for,
2017. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell nominated himself as Vice-Chair for 2017. Chair BJ
Bowen called the vote. Commissioner Holder received four votes (Bowen, Johnson, Kelly,
Holder), Commissioner Russell received one vote (Russell) and Frederick recused.
Page 3 of 63
DATE: December 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC
ADDRESS: 1003 McMath Ave.
COA REQUEST: Infill House
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath
Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11,
and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This site that is under consideration for the two row
houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1003
McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1005 is a separate
item.
This project will be required to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to
revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has
finished their review.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a
search of the files.
The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897
Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed
McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings.
On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story
frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue
was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A
large wrap around porch faced the street corner and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story
addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the “Auto House” in the rear that fronted on
the alley.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
Location of Project
Page 4 of 63
Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the
1978 survey. It has been vacant since.
1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left) 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps
Proposed elevations
1001 McMath 1003-1005 McMath 1007 McMath
Page 5 of 63
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This proposal is to add two “Row Homes” at 1003 and 1005 McMath. This staff report will
address 1003 McMath. 1005 McMath is a separate item on this agenda. The “Row House” is
three stories tall with a gable front roof with stained oak horizontal siding on the front façade
with a front loading single car garage. The entry to the house is a side entry near the rear of the
house.
Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following:
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
(a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps,
and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved,
or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of
appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and
approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require
a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance
of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a
building permit is required.
(2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include
the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior
of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the
type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other
appurtenant fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill
posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required.
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving
or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or
demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application
for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been
submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of
appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of
the district.
Page 6 of 63
The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be
reviewed:
Sec 23-120. – General Criteria
(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).
(d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any
building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to,
the following factors within the building's area of influence:
(1) Siting.
(2) Height.
(3) Proportion.
(4) Rhythm.
(5) Roof area.
(6) Entrance area.
(7) Wall areas.
(8) Detailing.
(9) Facade.
(10) Scale.
(11) Massing.
The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and
Additions and Detached New Construction:
B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS
New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt,
the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although
they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic
styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new
building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration,
such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of
details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too
small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.)
New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings,
should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but
reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional
for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary
structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape.
1. Building Orientation:
The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.
2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the
area. This includes height and width.
Page 7 of 63
3. Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in
keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be
reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction.
The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the
following criteria:
Architectural style
General design
General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the
building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and
other appurtenant fixtures
Siting
Height
Proportion
Rhythm
Roof area
Entrance area
Wall areas
Detailing
Facade
Scale
Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of the building is contemporary.
Page 8 of 63
Elevations submitted August 14, 2016
GENERAL DESIGN. It is a three story single family residence with a gable end roof. The front
façade (west) is dominated by a garage door on the first floor and a large fixed window on the
second and third floor. Windows on the other three facades are scattered with various sizes
and shapes. The first floor is masonry; king size brick. The remainder of the front façade is
stained white oak laid horizontally. The remainders of the other three facades are proposed to
be corrugated CorTen steel wall panels. CorTen steel has a naturally oxidizing finish.
Weathering steel is a group of steel alloys developed to obviate the need for painting and form a
stable rust-like appearance if exposed to the weather for several years. The south facing slope
of the roof is proposed to have solar panels. The roof is proposed to have standing seam
CorTen steel panels.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE
KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL
WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER
APPURTENANT FIXTURES
See below for the descriptions of the remainder of the items.
Wall light fixtures are a Progress cylinder light fixture model 5675-
20/30k antique bronze LED. These are proposed on each side of
the garage door and by the entry door. The light is 14” tall and 5”
in diameter.
SITING The house will sit 10’-0” to the south of 1001 McMath, the
mixed use building. It will sit 8’-0” north of 1005. The front
setback will be aligned with the existing 1001 McMath. This
setback relates to 1001 McMath and does not relate to 1007
McMath.
HEIGHT According to plans, the house is 37’-4” plus 1’-4”
(foundation) for a total of 38’-8” tall. The height of 1001 per the
plans is 35’-2”. The law school dorms on McAlmont Street are between 32’-4’ and 37’-0”
depending on which parapet is measured. The yellow house is the shortest of them all at
between 30 and 31 feet tall. This would be the tallest structure in the area of significance.
Proposed Light Fixture
Page 9 of 63
PROPORTION The proportion of this
structure reads as very tall and skinny.
This is a ratio of 1 wide to 2.41 tall. This
is not a typical proportion for single
family houses in the district.
RHYTHM The west side of the structure
does have a rhythm, in the fact that
there is one opening per floor and they
are centered in the wall. The other
facades do not have a discernable
rhythm.
ROOF AREA. The house features a
gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. The roof
will be CorTen #ss675 standing seam
roof, 16” wide and 22 gauge metal.
There will be a fixed vented ridgecap 7”
on each slope. Some historic houses
originally had metal roofs, some
standing seam and some metal
shingles. The CorTen steel roof will be
a matte finish as the steel rusts and
produces a medium to dark brown color.
The roof shape and material is
appropriate to the district.
The solar panels are to be located on the south side of roof. They are made by Sunmodule
Plus SW280 Mondo Black. They are 8 kilowatt each and measure 66”x37” each. The proposal
is to place 20 panels on the south facing slope of the roof for an area of 30’x12’. The location is
for maximum efficiency, but they will be visible from the street
ENTRANCE AREA The entry door to the house is at the rear of the structure, not prominently
displayed. This is non-typical for single family houses in the district. The dominance of the
garage on the front façade is also very non-typical for the district. Staff surveyed the district and
did not find any front loading garages on single family houses. The visitor entry to the house is
West elevation of building
Image of Standing Seam roof Proposed Solar Panels
Page 10 of 63
at the rear of the structure with few visual clues
as to the location of the entry door. The entry
door will feature a raised wood deck with 2x6
wood decking. This will be approximately flush
with the threshold of the door. There will be no
handrails or railings. There will be a small
canopy over the door of CorTen standing seam
roofing
WALL AREAS This house features CorTen
corrugated steel siding or stained white oak.
King size brick (oversize) is on the first floor with
CMU foundation.
The foundation is in CMU block for a maximum
height of 2’-0”. CMU block is short for Common
Masonry Unit. These will be 8’x8’x16’ smooth
gray concrete blocks.
The brick is a king size brick made by Boral, the
Liberty Collection- Henderson with dimensions 9
5/8” x 2 ¾” x 3”. This is a larger size brick. This is a wire cut commercial brick.
The CorTen siding is a A606-4 Western Stated/Bridger Weathering Steel, installed in a vertical
orientation. It is a 22 gauge CorTen steel 7/8” corrugated in 37’ wide panels. The spacing of
the corrugations is 2 2/3” wide.
The garage door is a Masonite door, steel flush door in
24 gauge steel and is insulated. It measures 7’ tall by
12’. This is a single garage door with no raised panels
or windows.
The entry door is a 36” x 80” Masonite Sta-Tru HD
flush steel door with no glass.
The side and rear facades feature two horizontal slit
windows, twelve square windows, and two vertical
windows, one which is ganged with a casement window under a fixed window. The ratio of solid
wall to windows is atypical with so little of the walls being dedicated to windows. The windows
are Anderson 100 series Awning and Casement windows in Bronze. The windows are made of
Fibrex – a blend of 40 percent wood fiber by weight and 60 percent thermoplastic polymer by
weight. The letter of August 14th states they will be casement and awning windows.
The windows, according to the sketches, will not have interior muntins.
Sketch of entry area
Corrugated CorTen steel siding
Page 11 of 63
DETAILING The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and
windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim.
FAÇADE The front façade features a single garage door on the first floor with two fixed large
widows on the second and third floor. The front (west) façade will be sheathed in stained white
oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally.
The boards are approximately a 1” x 5”.
SCALE This proposed structure is unique to the district with a
ratio of 1:2.41 width to height. This is not a typical width to
height. Historic houses in the district are wider than this one at
16’. In the photos below, 923 McMath has a width to height of
1.5:1, 718 E 10th is more horizontal with a ratio of 1.74:1, 1007
McMath has a ratio of 1.3:1 and 712 E 11th has a ratio of 1.3:1.
These numbers were generated from survey photos. All of
these structures are wider than they are tall.
MASSING The massing of this building is taller in proportion
than the rest of the buildings in the immediate area. The overall
mass may be similar, but the overtly vertical nature of it does not
blend with the neighborhood.
If the two houses were joined by some architectural feature to
emphasize the pedestrian visitor entry, the two houses might be
read as one and the proportion of the width to height would be
closer to a 1:1.
Proposed garage door (door only, not surround or brick) Proposed Entry door
Page 12 of 63
923 McMath 718 E 10th
1007 McMath 712 E 11th
SITE DESIGN
Fencing is to be pine wood and 4”x4”
utility wire, picture framed with pine and
attached with galvalume screws.
Driveways will be 12 feet wide in
concrete with apron flares at the street.
The walk to entry door appears to be
large concrete paver stones in concrete
based on the site plan. No detail has
been given.
This house does not blend with the
area of influence nor does it blend with
the district as a whole in the design
factors of Siting, Height, Proportion,
Rhythm, Entrance area, Wall areas, Scale, and Massing. The placement of the house on the lot
should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure
within the area of influence. The overall proportions do not blend with the district and the
rhythm of the exterior walls is undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to window area is
Proposed fence
Page 13 of 63
inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The scale and massing are
also atypical to the neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2016
The applicant was asked if he wanted to defer the item since there were only 4 commissioners
present. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer the item after it was heard by the Commission.
There was a discussion that according to the bylaws, an applicant can only defer five days in
advance of the hearing. It was decided that the Commission would defer the application after
the hearing for additional information.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. He noted the letter from the
Mayor.
Mr. Page Wilson, the applicant, made a presentation to the Commission with a PowerPoint
presentation. He spoke of row houses that were connected or separated and garages in the
front or the back. He spoke of the location of the site, that it is separated from the rest of the
district, and the individual structures that are contributing or non-contributing. He also noted
that he had a lease to own on the yellow house at 1007 McMath. He spoke of existing and new
curb cuts on McMath. He then spoke of his zoning on the site and reference the site plan. He
spoke of the distinct gable forms in the area and how they influenced his design. He also spoke
of the large fixed windows. He stated that he would be open to some sort of connection
between the two buildings and would not be covered all of the way through. Mr. Wilson
acknowledged that there are no single family structur es where there is a front loaded garage.
He spoke of parking in the front yards. He spoke of materials to be used and said that he would
be open to a ribbon driveway to the units. He stated 1001 was built at 38’-2” tall but was shown
as 35’-2” on the elevations as submitted for the COA. The building was built taller because of
code requirements for the stairs.
Mr. Minyard read out of the guidelines Appendix K, the definition of height to clarify for the
Commissioners. It states: “The distance from the bottom to the top of a building or structure.”
He stated that he added the foundation height to the building height to get the proposed heights
of the buildings. He continued that there were different ways of calculating height in different
ways in different parts of the city. He continued the presentation with a discussion of height of
the building, and the elevations of the Heiple Wiedower infill plan. He read from page 54 of the
Guidelines under Alterations or Additions to Historic Additions and stated that these did not
apply to his project.
Mr. Wilson stated that he was open to installing a grill pattern in the front facing west windows,
maybe snazzing up the garage doors, and reducing the concrete in the front. He then spoke of
the new African American Museum that was built on the Mall in Washington DC.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked if he was open to changing the façade on the street view. Mr.
Wilson handed out two photos of his inspiration for the row house. Mr. Wilson stated that he
could add block or a wood piece in between the buildings. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated
that it would help to have a screen wall. It would be seen like a fence instead of a wall between
Page 14 of 63
the two. There was a question on what staff would call the structure. Mr. Minyard responded
that Staff would decide what to call it after it was submitted to them. There was a discussion on
the Guidelines recommendations on fence heights and the locations of the fences.
Commissioner Toni Johnson commented on the other duplexes being replatted for zero lot lines
and asked why he could not do that. Mr. Wilson replied that he wanted to separate them for
sound issues and ease of construction and build one at a time. He noted a negative public
perception of duplexes.
Commissioner Johnston stated that he was arguing for a looser interpretation of the guidelines
because of what is around it. They cannot throw out that many of the guidelines to support this
application. She spoke of the height, rhythm, scale, massing, and materials. To his comments
on this from being in the district already, she noted that Mr. Wilson was only showing a portion
of the building, not all of it.
Mr. Wilson stated that the CorTen steel looks rusty when it is done. Changes for opening and
not viewed as easily and will mostly be in the shadow. He continued that the solar panels will
be hard to see.
Vice Chair Russell stated that based on the four criteria, he believes that the project complies.
On orientation, he believes that it complies. On mass and scale, the form is an abstraction of
other houses from various styles of building. On the building form, he says this is a classic
form. On building materials, it has predominately used wood. On the facades, the metal will not
be seen from the street. Mr. Wilson stated that the orientation of the metal was vertical.
Mr. Wilson talked of the contributing and non-contributing map. He spoke of the new
apartments in the 500 block of Rock that are 50 feet high. He stated he was willing to add an
abstraction to join the building, but did not want it to be unsafe for the residents.
Vice Chair Russell wanted the applicant to bring physical samples of the steel and wood to the
meeting. Mr. Minyard stated that he had one piece of wood that was given to Staff, but it was
unremarkable. Mr. Minyard clarified that the wood should be attached to another piece so that
the Commission could see how the individual pieces are attached in relation to the others.
Chair BJ Bowen stated that the project did not have the typical proportion; the garage is on the
front; the height is taller; the entrance door is in the rear not prominently displayed; and the slit
windows need to be larger. All of these things do not adhere to the guidelines.
Mr. Wilson stated that on Italianate structures, the windows are all over the place in size. The
small windows are in the dark edges of the building and not seen from the street. The buildings
are 84’ long and 20’ wide. The shotguns he has built are either 18’ wide or 18’ with bumpouts.
He stated that he is not interested in building replica lite but has voted for them. He then spoke
of the Mayors letter. He continued that he did not get tax credits for these projects since he is in
new construction.
Vice Chair Russell stated that he still has issues with the proportion.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked has he thought about security between the buildings. Mr.
Wilson believes that eyes on the street will help the neighbors patrol the area. The windows do
not face each other.
Page 15 of 63
Rhea Roberts, QQA, stated that members of the advocacy group met with Mr. Wilson. They
appreciated the wood on the structures. Because of low numbers of contributing structures in
that area of the district, they did not have a huge problem with the form and shape. They are
concerned with the garage door on the front façade and the lack of any front door. Front doors
are common in the district.
A motion was withdrawn for waiving the bylaws.
Mr. Minyard stated for the record that as stated on the application form that all information must
be given to staff no later than three weeks before the meeting. That would mean that all
revisions would be due on September 19th. Mr. Wilson verified that he could meet that deadline.
A motion was made to defer both items at 1003 and 1005 McMath till October 10, 2016 for
further information by Vice Chair Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent
(Holder) and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: October 10, 2016
On September 19, 2016 Staff received an additional drawing of an entry feature. It will span the
area between the two buildings and function as a gate to the entry area. It will be made of
horizontal white oak boards and have a ‘roof’ overhang. See the end of the report f or more
detailed drawings.
View from northwest View from southwest
The national register historic district and local ordinance historic district is named “MacArthur
Park”. The district was drawn to surround the park on all four sides and take in residential and
commercial areas on all four sides of the park. This site is an important site in the district as it
fronts onto MacArthur Park and is within view of National Historic Landmark Individually Listed
Arsenal building.
The contributing structures on the street are the Law School at 1201 McMath (originally the
UAMS Medical School), the house at 1007 McMath and the house at 923 McMath. In
Arkansas, the out buildings are also shown as contributing as an accessory structure to the
principal structure. They are not contributing in their own right.
Page 16 of 63
Staff inventoried the neighborhood for single family houses with garage doors on the front
façade of the house - there are none. There are seven detached garages with garage doors
facing the street in the district. These structures are in the rear of properties where carriage
houses were originally sited. The ones that were mentioned in the presentation, The Lincoln
House at 301 E 7th Street, 624 S Rock Street, 1023 Cumberland and 1003 S Scott Street were
built as residential with a carriage house in the rear of the structure. All of these are on corner
lots with the garage doors facing the other street.
The Lincoln House (panoramic photo)
The Lincoln House, an Italianate structure is shown above with the front façade facing 7th Street
and the detached garage facing Cumberland Street. The detached garage is to the left in the
photo behind the tree.
Page 17 of 63
624 S Rock Street (panoramic photo)
624 S Rock is shown above with the front façade facing Rock Street and the detached garage
facing 7th Street. The detached garage is to the right in the photo.
1003 S Scott Street front facade 1003 S Scott Street side facade
The Bragg Apartments at 1003 S Scott is shown above. This building from is u nique in the fact
that the detached garage is located at the far back corner of the lot with the garage accessible
from both street and two garage doors on two façades. This does fit the pattern in the facade
that the garage is smaller in footprint area, smaller in mass and is located on a corner lot.
Page 18 of 63
1023 S Cumberland front facade 1023 S Cumberland side facade
1023 S Cumberland is shown above with the front façade facing Cumberland Street and the
detached garage on the right in the photos facing 11th Street.
These four houses with the accompanying detached garages were a common form at the time.
A larger principal structure was located at the front of the lot and a smaller, in footprint,
detached garage at the rear of the property was either one or two story. The two storied
examples were often used for servants’ quarters and later were used as apartments for rental
income. This pattern of houses with detached garages is common in multiple historic districts in
the city. This pattern is not dependent on whether an alley is present. On page 2 of this report,
the Sanborn Maps show multiple accessory buildings along the alley way in the 1000 block of
McMath. The detached garages were built as an accessory structures on the lot. An accessory
structure is built on the same lot as the principal structure; serves the principal building; is
subordinate in area, extent, or purpose. These four examples are perfect examples of
accessory structures.
North Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached
garage
East Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage
South Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached
garage
West Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage
Page 19 of 63
This structure is the detached garage at 1003 S Scott Street. This structure does have
corrugated metal in a vertical orientation on the east and south side. This detached garage is to
the rear of the lot on the east and on the property line on the south, has access from the both
streets, and is an accessory structure. The metal siding is on the sides of the garage that is
farthest away from the house and farthest from the streets. The street facing façades, the north
and west façade with the garage doors has brick veneer that matches the brick of the house.
The west façade, a solid wall that is closest to the house, is all brick that matches the house.
Parking of cars does occur in the front setback of some structures that were built as single
family houses in the district and has for some time. This is rare and the only case that Staff
knows of are the houses on the 600 block of Ferry Street. There is not an alley to the rear of
these lots so parking on the street or in the front yards are the only option. At least one house
does not have off street parking. There are also some apartment building s that only have on
street parking.
The single family row houses that are proposed to be built have only a garage door on the front
of the units. The added entry feature as shown in the revised drawings may not be built until the
second unit is finished as a builder would have to work around it. The entry feature’s gate to the
entry area is not very pronounced and will depend on the walkway from the public sidewalk to
announce that this is the entrance to the two units.
Staff inventoried the district and did not find any single family structures with front facing
garages. The houses that have parking in the front yards do not have alley access. 1003 and
1005 McMath have alley access from the rear of the lots. The cover letter states that “This will
be our final application in MacArthur Park Historic District for New Construction.” If that is true,
then the floor plans could be modified and the garage doors could be located to the rear of the
structures. In the Site Design section of the guidelines, it states that “Accommodations for
automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood as possible.”
Accommodations for automobiles include garage doors. Placing garage doors on the front
façade of a structure does not make the unobtrusive nor the automobile parked behind it.
Residential parking should be as stated on page 61 of the Guidelines:
“Parking areas and garages for houses should be located in the rear of the house,
with entrance from an alley or from a side driveway. Parking should not be in the
front yard. Original designs, materials, and placement of driveways should be
preserved. If the driveway must lead from the street through a side yard to parking in
the rear, brick or concrete tracks or narrow strips are recommended, with grass or
ground cover filling the median. Side or rear driveways should be gravel or smooth
concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick.”
The four examples of detached garages are in keeping with the guidelines since they access
the garage through a side yard and the garage is in the rear of the lot. The guidelines would
suggest that the floor plan be modified so that the garage doors are on the rear of the structure
with access from the already paved alley.
In the Guidelines on page 55, it lists four principles to follow. They are listed on page 4 and 5 of
this report.
1. Building Orientation:
“The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
Page 20 of 63
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.”
The form of 1001 McMath could be viewed as a corner commercial building with residential
uses above which were common in Little Rock in the past. However, the other buildings in
those blocks adhered to a residential setback which accentuated the commercial form on the
corner. Originally there were three houses in the 1000 block of McMath as shown on the
Sanborn maps that had similar front yard setbacks. 1007 McMath is the only one of the three
houses which had uniform setbacks to survive.
2. Building Mass and Scale:
“New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the
area. This includes height and width.”
In the last hearing, the applicant stated that 1001 McMath was actually 38’-2” tall, three feet
taller than the application showed. The roof on 1001 slants to the east which diminishes the
mass as the viewer looks east. The houses proposed at 1003 and 1005 have a constant
ridgeline of 38’-8”. These two houses will be built taller and the farther one is to t he east, the
more the height difference will be between the buildings. This would be the tallest structure in
the area of significance.
The guidelines state that “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic
structures in the area. This includes height and width.” These individual structures do not
comply with this statement. The individual houses ratios are unusually tall to their width. If the
entry feature is added, and is deemed to visually combine the structures into one, the overall
height to width could be more in line with other structures in the district.
3. Building Form
“Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)”
The house features a gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. Some historic houses originally had metal
roofs, some standing seam and some metal shingles. The roof shape and material is
appropriate to the district. The entrance area to each unit is to the rear of the structure. The
entry feature that was proposed might serve as the entry to the two units with the contempor ary
porch, but the horizontal slats of wood do not differentiate the door versus the rest of the wall
section. More detail will be needed to be provided to assure that this reads as a combined entry
to the units. The windows in the units on three sides are random and lacking rhythm. In the
photos of houses, there is a discernable rhythm in the window placement. There is also a
commonality of window shapes that are rectangular in shape placed vertically on the façade.
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
Page 21 of 63
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The wall areas are to be either stained white oak, brick, or CorTen corrugated steel siding in a
vertical orientation. Wood siding is a common material in the district. Corrugated metal siding
on a wall surface is found on accessory buildings in the district. Half of 1005 and more than half
of 1003 is proposed to be built out of a material that is found on accessory structures on a non-
dominant façade.
The standing seam roof proposed was used on several historic structures in the district. The
garage door and entry doors into the units are flush with no glass inserts and no raised panels.
The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and windows will be
J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim.
This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a
whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Rhythm, Entrance area, and Wall areas. The
added submittal of the entry feature may affect the Proportion, Scale, or Massing of the
structure. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic house at
1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence. The rhythm of the
exterior walls on the east, north and south sides are undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area
to window area is inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The
scale and massing are also atypical to the neighborhood.
The ordinance states in Section 23-120 (f): “Generally, new construction shall be judged on its
ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence.” With the above listed
concerns, the proposed structure is not appropriate for the district.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item focusing on the changes made to the
application since the last hearing. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if the QQA had made a
comment on the item. Mr. Minyard read their comments from the approved minutes.
Page Wilson made a presentation. He spoke of context of the area with contributing structures,
zoning, curb cuts, other buildings, and that he did not feel that this was a neighborhood. He
mentioned Form; Orientation; Material; and Mass and Scale; the four items for “New
Construction”. He referenced these that are found on page 55 of the Guidelines.
He referenced the gable form of parts of other buildings and showed examples in the
PowerPoint. Mr. Wilson stated that Adam Day gave him help on the design. He extrapolated
the two houses and the space between them as two pens in a dogtrot without the roof.
Page 22 of 63
He handed out drawings that showed the approved PCD site plan that showed proposed
buildings and spoke of different departments and agencies that had input on the Planning
Commission approval.
He talked about the ecology area in the rear of the site with the retention pond. He stated that
the pond could not change. He spoke of four parking spaces off the alley for 1001 McMath. Mr.
Wilson approached the dais and explained the map to Commissioner Johnson. He referred to
the Low Impact Development LID as soft engineering. There is an expansion shown at 1007
McMath in the rear. He has 1007 McMath under a lease to own contract and is unsure whether
or not they will do the expansion. He referred to the open space in the middle of the
development as park space, natural areas, and common area.
He stated that this will be the last application for him, but someone else may represent him or
he may sell the project. He talked about platting and sewer line replatting issues.
He desires to keep open space and show project like it was built over time.
There were no questions from the Commissioner on the site plan.
Commissioner Ted Holder commented that the plan shows trees along McMath and 10th street.
The new curb cuts would get rid of the trees. Mr. Wilson stated that the hackberry on the site
will come out and the maple tree will stay in the front yard of 1007.
Mr. Wilson stated that site plan was done for the City Beautiful Commission (CBC). He planted
eight species of trees which is in excess of the two species required. Two trees would be put
back in on McMath. He stated that he is okay with installing a ribbon driveway for the units. He
also stated he has a few more trees to plant.
Mr. Wilson agreed with Staff that there are no single family houses with garages on the front
façade. He thinks that they are good examples of how people park in garages off the street.
He spoke of a contributing structure at 11th and Commerce, the ranch house which has a
carport on the side of the house and he questioned what the difference in a carport and a
garage was. The related a portico with a carport. He then spoke of a building at 8th and Rock
which he said belonged to the Terry Mansion. It has garage doors facing the street and the
entry doors to the side. He thinks his proposal is appropriate with garage in the front. He talked
about Bylites garage door.
He brought brick, CorTen steel and wood examples. The stated the CorTen steel was eleven
gauge steel. He put the oak bards together to show how they would be assembled.
Commissioner Johnson asked how the wood would be adhered to the building, would it overlap.
Mr. Wilson said that he did not think he would have to put it on furring strips and that it would not
overlap. He described a staining technique that uses vinegar that he planned on using.
The finish of the white oak is the same, CorTen steel has a little more aging to do than the
sample that the has brought. He may change the brick color. He will not use red, pink or orange
brick on the units. He stated he did not bring the staff report. Commissioner Johnson asked
about the Mayor’s letter. Mr. Wilson referred her to the last paragraph of the Mayor’s letter. He
discussed the last paragraph of the Mayor’s letter. Mr. Wilson believes he is following the
guidelines with new construction.
Page 23 of 63
Mr. Wilson handed out a copy of the graphic from the Heiple Wiedower Study. He believes that
this is how a neighborhood should look over time.
Mr. Wilson stated that parking should be unobtrusive. The Commission will decide ’what’
unobtrusive is. He talked about progression of architectural styles in the district. He stated that
he has to follow Public Works guidelines on curb cuts.
Mr. Wilson believes that this building is not the tallest. He had a list of the buildings that he
believes are taller than his. He ended his presentation with the Museum of Black History on the
Mall in Washington DC. This is what something old and something new look l like together. He
quoted section B, page 55, of the New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings
guidelines on page 55 of the Guidelines. Concerning Building Orientation, with UU zoning, he
believes it should line up with 1001 McMath instead of 1007 McMath. He mentioned that 1009
was close to the street.
On Building Mass and Scale, the thought he met the threshold with entries in the rear. The
thought his new entry feature that tied the building together. On Building Form, he referenced
the gable form and dog trot integrations. On Building Materials, he believes he is similar. He
then handed out a picture of CorTen steel staining seam metal on a house.
Mr. Wilson stated he was fronting MacArthur Park. He said that he has spent eleven years on
the MacArthur Park group. He said he recruited Sharon Priest to the MacArthur Park Group.
He references the Park as the core or spoke of neighborhood. He stated nobody had worked
harder to make a difference for MacPark. He spoke of contributions to other areas and talked
about the condition of the park.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked him to stay on topic with his presentation. He thinks that
his building will not harm the park. The area will never go back to the density that was there
before. He is trying to add some density back to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Holder suggested switching the garage doors. Commissioner Holder stated that
the applicant wanted open spaces and the space in the rear is not that big in comparison to the
very large open space of the park across the street. He asked if Mr. Wilson could change
parking in the rear to be angled and have enough space to have driveways to the garages in the
back of the buildings. Mr. Wilson said he did not have enough room to add more parking.
Commissioner Holder believes that he does.
Vice Chair Russell asked if the garages are required for the project. Mr. Wilson stated that they
were for potential buyers. Vice Chair Russell stated that in UU zoning, off street parking is not
required. He continued that the argument is against curb cuts at the front of the house. He did
not believe that people moved to MacArthur Park in order to park in their garages. He asked
again if garages are required for the project. Would it be a detriment on the project? Vice Chair
Russell asked if he would be willing to get rid of the garages. Mr. Wilson said maybe but his
project must be competitive. Row houses with garages are more desirable. Vice C hair Russell
commented on the guests would have to come down alley between houses.
Chair BJ Bowen asked if there was a way to angle the parking in the rear. Mr. Wilson spoke
about placement of utilities and the green space. Mr. Wilson stated he believes in sustainability
and urban infill.
Page 24 of 63
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked where the property line in relation to the 10 foot separation is.
Mr. Wilson stated he must maintain the 10 foot separation between buildings. Commissioner
Kelley asked can he not use that 10 foot to use as a driveway. A discussion followed with Mr.
Wilson stating that he could not use those areas as driveways.
Commissioner Holder asked if Mr. Wilson could not angle four spaces, could he install four
parallel spaces and make room for the driveways to access the garages from the rear. Vice
Chair Russell stated that he would have to remove a building. Mr. Wilson stated that he could
put a storage unit in that area where the site plan shows a building.
Commissioner Johnson does not see that much difference in the revised plan except for entry
feature. Mr. Wilson thinks it will read as one building. Commissioner Johnson thinks the rhythm
and form are the two main things she is concerned about. The placement on the lot should
relate more to the historic house. The ratio of wall to window area is inappropriate in her view;
the windows are too small or too few. A big concern for her is the garage door on front.
Commissioner Bowen thinks a lot of the Commissioners are concerned with the garage door on
the front.
Commissioner Holder stated that new construction should not replicate but blend. Some
obviously does not blend. The two mobile homes that have been joined together across from
his house do not blend. The garage door on this application is very prominent. It looks like a
storage unit. It does not read like a house. He can see the form but would like the house to
have more windows. He also brought up the point that a car could park in front of the garage
door. He summarized that the house did not blend.
Mr. Wilson asked if it was more desirable to have a garage door or to park off street. He
mentioned the ranch house and on-street parking. Commissioner Holder stated that there was
nothing like this in the district in relation to parking. He continued that there should be a
consideration of proximity to the park. This project does not fit or blend. The garage doors are
his biggest concern.
Commissioner Johnson stated that she assumed that he would change his submittals. She said
that she was concerned about the location and number of porches. She would like to see two
porches in relation to the form of the buildings, the entrances to the buildings.
Vice Chair Russell asked if abstraction of form is read as single building. Is there an objection
to having a single porch? Commissioner Johnson responded that it would depend on how it is
designed. If this is it, this design is not compatible within the district. She does not see the
entry feature as a porch.
Mr. Wilson stated that he could submit a new design and may delete the garages. He stated
that he wanted to defer these applications.
Commissioner Holder stated that these may be built one at a time and that could affect the
design or order in which it was built. Vice Chair Russell stated the order of construction of the
applicant is not our concern. Commissioner Holder stated that it was.
Page 25 of 63
Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, stated that these are two separate buildings and two
applications. Maybe if the buildings were designed to be connected together in some way, they
ought to be considered together.
Adam Day, who worked on the project, spoke of the building being a record of our time. People
will not build old Victorian structures.
Jeff Horton, an architect, voiced support of the application.
Chair Bowen stated that the applicant has made a request to defer the item to the next meeting.
Vice Chair Russell stated in regards to Building Orientation, he had some concern with the
relationship between the two applications. Some thought might be taken to shift the buildings
back getting closer to 1007. On the Building Mass and Scale, some Commissioners have an
issue with the vertical height to the width. He made an argument for the screen wall as it needs
to be read as a singular mass. On Building Materials, the CorTen steel appears to rust, but it is
a patina. It will stabilize and protect material.
Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer application to next meeting. Vice Chair Russell made a
motion to defer both applications to the November 2016 hearing and Commissioner Kelley
seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: November 14, 2016
Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on October 14, 2016 asking for a deferral
to the December 2016 agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the December 12,
2016 agenda.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016
The applicant requested a deferral to the November 2015 hearing via email on October 14,
2016. A motion was made to accept the deferral to the December 2016 hearing by Vice Chair
Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Ted Holder. The motion passed with a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: December 12, 2016
Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on November 18, 2016 asking for a
deferral to the January 2017 agenda. His email stated: We do not have time to update our
plans for 1003-1005 McMath Ave. I would like to defer to January 2017. If we change the plan
completely, I think we will request a withdrawal. Consider this as our deferral. We will inform
staff should we decide to change plan entirely. Sincerely, Page
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the January 9,
2017 agenda unless the application is to change completely. If that is the case, Staff
recommends withdrawal.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016
The applicant, Page Wilson, approached the podium and stated that he wanted to withdraw his
application at this time. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked him to verify if he was asking to withdraw
both items. He replied yes.
Page 26 of 63
Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to waive the bylaws in reference to Section 7
Withdrawals to allow a withdrawal of two items without the request being submitted in writing
more than five days in advance of the hearing. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote
passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick).
Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to withdraw the items at 1003 and 1005 McMath
without prejudice. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0
noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick).
Page 27 of 63
DATE: December 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC
ADDRESS: 1005 McMath Ave.
COA REQUEST: Infill House
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath
Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11,
and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This site that is under consideration for the two row
houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1005
McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1003 is a separate
item.
This project will be required to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to
revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has
finished their review.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a
search of the files.
The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897
Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed
McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings.
On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story
frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue
was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A
large wrap around porch faced the street corner and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story
addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the “Auto House” in the rear that fronted on
the alley.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. B.
Location of Project
Page 28 of 63
Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the
1978 survey. It has been vacant since.
1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left) 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps
Proposed elevations
1001 McMath 1003-1005 McMath 1007 McMath
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This proposal is to add two “Row Homes” at 1003 and 1005 McMath. This staff report will
address 1005 McMath. 1003 McMath is a separate item on this agenda. The “Row House” is
three stories tall with a gable front roof with stained oak horizontal siding on the front façade
Page 29 of 63
with a front loading single car garage. The entry to the house is a side entry near the rear of the
house.
Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following:
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
(a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps,
and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved,
or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of
appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and
approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require
a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance
of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of const ructing or altering
structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a
building permit is required.
(2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include
the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior
of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the
type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other
appurtenant fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill
posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required.
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving
or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or
demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application
for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been
submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of
appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of
the district.
The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be
reviewed:
Sec 23-120. – General Criteria
Page 30 of 63
(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).
(d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any
building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to,
the following factors within the building's area of influence:
(1) Siting.
(2) Height.
(3) Proportion.
(4) Rhythm.
(5) Roof area.
(6) Entrance area.
(7) Wall areas.
(8) Detailing.
(9) Facade.
(10) Scale.
(11) Massing.
The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and
Additions and Detached New Construction:
B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS
New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt,
the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although
they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic
styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new
building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration,
such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of
details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too
small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.)
New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings,
should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but
reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional
for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary
structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape.
1. Building Orientation:
The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.
2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the
area. This includes height and width.
3. Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
Page 31 of 63
(foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in
keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be
reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction.
The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the
following criteria:
Architectural style
General design
General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the
building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and
other appurtenant fixtures
Siting
Height
Proportion
Rhythm
Roof area
Entrance area
Wall areas
Detailing
Facade
Scale
Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of the building is contemporary.
Page 32 of 63
Elevations submitted August 14, 2016
GENERAL DESIGN. It is a three story single family residence with a gable end roof. The front
façade (west) is dominated by a garage door on the first floor and a large fixed window on the
second and third floor. Windows on the other three facades are scattered with various sizes
and shapes. The first floor is masonry; king size brick. The remainder of the front façade and
the south facades are stained white oak laid horizontally. The remainders of the north and east
facades are proposed to be corrugated CorTen steel wall panels. CorTen steel has a naturally
oxidizing finish. Weathering steel is a group of steel alloys developed to obviate the need for
painting and form a stable rust-like appearance if exposed to the weather for several years. The
south facing slope of the roof is proposed to have solar panels. The roof is proposed to have
standing seam CorTen steel panels.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE
KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL
WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER
APPURTENANT FIXTURES
See below for the descriptions of the remainder of the items.
Wall light fixtures are a Progress cylinder light fixture model 5675-
20/30k antique bronze LED. These are proposed on each side of
the garage door and by the entry door. The light is 14” tall and 5”
in diameter.
SITING The house will sit 10’-0” to the south of 1001 McMath, the
mixed use building. It will sit 8’-0” north of 1005. The front
setback will be aligned with the existing 1001 McMath. This
setback relates to 1001 McMath and does not relate to 1007
McMath. With this house, 1005, sitting much closer to the street
than 1007 McMath, the south side of the structure will be much
more visible from the street. Large expanses of wall with little or
no windows do not blend with the district.
HEIGHT According to plans, the house is 37’-4” plus 1’-4” (foundation) for a total of 38’-8” tall.
The height of 1001 per the plans is 35’-2”. The law school dorms on McAlmont Street are
between 32’-4’ and 37’-0” depending on which parapet is measured. The yellow house is the
shortest of them all at between 30 and 31 feet tall. This would be the tallest structure in the area
of significance.
Proposed Light Fixture
Page 33 of 63
PROPORTION The proportion of this
structure reads as very tall and skinny.
This is a ratio of 1 wide to 2.41 tall. This
is not a typical proportion for single family
houses in the district.
RHYTHM The west side of the structure
does have a rhythm, in the fact that there
is one opening per floor and they are
centered in the wall. The other facades
do not have a discernable rhythm.
ROOF AREA. The house features a
gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. The roof will
be CorTen #ss675 standing seam roof,
16” wide and 22 gauge metal. There will
be a fixed vented ridgecap 7” on each
slope. Some historic houses originally
had metal roofs, some standing seam
and some metal shingles. The CorTen
steel roof will be a matte finish as the
steel rusts and produces a medium to
dark brown color. The roof shape and
material is appropriate to the district.
West elevation of building
Image of Standing Seam roof Proposed Solar Panels
Page 34 of 63
The solar panels are to be located on the south side of roof. They are made by Sunmodule
Plus SW280 Mondo Black. They are 8 kilowatt each and measure 66”x37” each. The proposal
is to place 20 panels on the south facing slope of the roof for an area of 30’x12’. The location is
for maximum efficiency, but they will be visible from the street.
ENTRANCE AREA The entry door to the house
is at the rear of the structure, not prominently
displayed. This is non-typical for single family
houses in the district. The dominance of the
garage on the front façade is also very non-
typical for the district. Staff surveyed the district
and did not find any front loading garages on
single family houses. The visitor entry to the
house is at the rear of the structure with few
visual clues as to the location of the entry door.
The entry door will feature a raised wood deck
with 2x6 wood decking. This will be
approximately flush with the threshold of the
door. There will be no handrails or railings.
There will be a small canopy over the door of
CorTen standing seam roofing.
WALL AREAS This house features CorTen
corrugated steel siding or stained white oak.
White Oak is on the west and south facades and
the CorTen is on the north and east facades.
King size brick (oversize) is on the first floor with CMU foundation.
The foundation is in CMU block for a maximum height of 2’-0”. CMU block is short for Common
Masonry Unit. These will be 8’x8’x16’ smooth gray concrete blocks.
The brick is a king size brick made by Boral, the Liberty Collection- Henderson with dimensions
9 5/8” x 2 ¾” x 3”. This is a larger size brick. This is a wire cut commercial brick.
The CorTen siding is a A606-4 Western Stated/Bridger
Weathering Steel, installed in a vertical orientation. It
is a 22 gauge CorTen steel 7/8” corrugated in 37’ wide
panels. The spacing of the corrugations is 2 2/3” wide.
The south side façade will be sheathed in stained
white oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed
flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally. The
boards are approximately a 1” x 5”.
The garage door is a Masonite door, steel flush door in
24 gauge steel and is insulated. It measures 7’ tall by
12’. This is a single garage door with no raised panels or windows.
The entry door is a 36” x 80” Masonite Sta-Tru HD flush steel door with no glass.
Sketch of entry area
Corrugated CorTen steel siding
Page 35 of 63
The side and rear facades feature two horizontal slit windows, twelve square windows, and two
vertical windows, one which is ganged with a casement window under a fixed window. The ratio
of solid wall to windows is atypical with so little of the walls being dedicated to windows. The
windows are Anderson 100 series Awning and Casement windows in Bronze. The windows are
made of Fibrex – a blend of 40 percent wood fiber by weight and 60 percent thermoplastic
polymer by weight. The letter of August 14th states they will be casement and awning windows.
The windows, according to the sketches, will not have interior muntins.
DETAILING The detailing on this structure will be minimal with
the trim around the doors and windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼”
face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim.
FAÇADE The front façade features a single garage door on
the first floor with two fixed large widows on the second and
third floor. The front (west) façade will be sheathed in stained
white oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with
no overlap. It will be laid horizontally. The boards are
approximately a 1” x 5”.
SCALE This proposed structure is unique to the district with a
ratio of 1:2.41 width to height. This is not a typical width to
height. Historic houses in the district are wider than this one at
16’. In the photos below, 923 McMath has a width to height of
1.5:1, 718 E 10th is more horizontal with a ratio of 1.74:1, 1007
McMath has a ratio of 1.3:1 and 712 E 11th has a ratio of 1.3:1.
These numbers were generated from survey photos. All of
these structures are wider than they are tall.
Proposed garage door (door only, not surround or brick) Proposed Entry door
Page 36 of 63
MASSING The massing of this building is taller in proportion than the rest of the buildings in the
immediate area. The overall mass may be similar, but the overtly vertical nature of it does not
blend with the neighborhood.
If the two houses were joined by some architectural feature to emphasize the pedestrian visitor
entry, the two houses might be read as one and the proportion of the width to height would be
closer to a 1:1.
923 McMath 718 E 10th
1007 McMath 712 E 11th
SITE DESIGN
Fencing is to be pine wood and 4”x4” utility wire, picture framed with pine and attached with
galvalume screws.
Driveways will be 12 feet wide in concrete with apron flares at the street.
The walk to entry door appears to be large concrete paver stones in concrete based on the site
plan. No detail has been given.
This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a
whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Entrance area, Wall areas,
Scale, and Massing. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic
house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence.
Page 37 of 63
The overall proportions do not blend
with the district and the rhythm of the
exterior walls is undiscernible. The
overall ratio of wall area to window area
is inappropriate with too few windows
or the windows being too small. The
scale and massing are also atypical to
the neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND
REACTION: At the time of distribution,
there were no comments regarding this
application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2016
See discussion of 1003 McMath for general comments on this item.
A motion was made to defer both items at 1003 and 1005 McMath till October 10, 2016 for
further information by Vice Chair Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent
(Holder) and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: October 10, 2016
On September 19, 2016 Staff received an additional drawing of an entry feature. It will span the
area between the two buildings and function as a gate to the entry area. It will be made of
horizontal white oak boards and have a ‘roof’ overhang. See the end of the report for more
detailed drawings.
View from northwest View from southwest
The national register historic district and local ordinance historic district is named “MacArthur
Park”. The district was drawn to surround the park on all four sides and take in residential and
commercial areas on all four sides of the park. This site is an important site in the district as it
fronts onto MacArthur Park and is within view of National Historic Landmark Individually Listed
Arsenal building.
Proposed fence
Page 38 of 63
The contributing structures on the street are the Law School at 1201 McMath (originally the
UAMS Medical School), the house at 1007 McMath and the house at 923 McMath. In
Arkansas, the out buildings are also shown as contributing as an accessory structure to the
principal structure. They are not contributing in their own right.
Staff inventoried the neighborhood for single family houses with garage doors on the front
façade of the house - there are none. There are seven detached garages with garage doors
facing the street in the district. These structures are in the rear of properties where carriage
houses were originally sited. The ones that were mentioned in the presentation, The Lincoln
House at 301 E 7th Street, 624 S Rock Street, 1023 Cumberland and 1003 S Scott Street were
built as residential with a carriage house in the rear of the structure. All of these are on corner
lots with the garage doors facing the other street.
The Lincoln House (panoramic photo)
The Lincoln House, an Italianate structure is shown above with the front façade facing 7th Street
and the detached garage facing Cumberland Street. The detached garage is to the left in the
photo behind the tree.
Page 39 of 63
624 S Rock Street (panoramic photo)
624 S Rock is shown above with the front façade facing Rock Street and the detached garage
facing 7th Street. The detached garage is to the right in the photo.
1003 S Scott Street front facade 1003 S Scott Street side facade
The Bragg Apartments at 1003 S Scott is shown above. This building from is unique in the fact
that the detached garage is located at the far back corner of the lot with the garage accessible
from both street and two garage doors on two façades. This does fit the pattern in the facade
that the garage is smaller in footprint area, smaller in mass and is located on a corner lot.
Page 40 of 63
1023 S Cumberland front facade 1023 S Cumberland side facade
1023 S Cumberland is shown above with the front façade facing Cumberland Street and the
detached garage on the right in the photos facing 11th Street.
These four houses with the accompanying detached garages were a common form at the time.
A larger principal structure was located at the front of the lot and a smaller, in footprint,
detached garage at the rear of the property was either one or two story. The two storied
examples were often used for servants’ quarters and later were used as apartments for rental
income. This pattern of houses with detached garages is common in multiple historic districts in
the city. This pattern is not dependent on whether an alley is present. On page 2 of this report,
the Sanborn Maps show multiple accessory buildings along the alley way in the 1000 block of
McMath. The detached garages were built as an accessory structures on the lot. An accessory
structure is built on the same lot as the principal structure; serves the principal building; is
subordinate in area, extent, or purpose. These four examples are perfect examples of
accessory structures.
North Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached
garage
East Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage
South Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached
garage
West Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage
Page 41 of 63
This structure is the detached garage at 1003 S Scott Street. This structure does have
corrugated metal in a vertical orientation on the east and south side. This detached garage is to
the rear of the lot on the east and on the property line on the south, has access from the both
streets, and is an accessory structure. The metal siding is on the sides of the garage that is
farthest away from the house and farthest from the streets. The street facing façades, the north
and west façade with the garage doors has brick veneer that matches the brick of the house.
The west façade, a solid wall that is closest to the house, is all brick that matches the house.
Parking of cars does occur in the front setback of some structures that were built as single
family houses in the district and has for some time. This is rare and the only cases that Staff
knows of are the houses on the 600 block of Ferry Street. There is not an alley to the rear of
these lots so parking on the street or in the front yards are the only option. At least one house
does not have off street parking. There are also some apartment buildings that only have on
street parking.
The single family row houses that are proposed to be built have only a garage door on the front
of the units. The added entry feature as shown in the revised drawings may not be built until the
second unit is finished as a builder would have to work around it. The entry feature’s gate to the
entry area is not very pronounced and will depend on the walkway from the public sidewalk to
announce that this is the entrance to the two units.
Staff inventoried the district and did not find any single family structures with f ront facing
garages. The houses that have parking in the front yards do not have alley access. 1003 and
1005 McMath have alley access from the rear of the lots. The cover letter states that “This will
be our final application in MacArthur Park Historic District for New Construction.” If that is true,
then the floor plans could be modified and the garage doors could be located to the rear of the
structures. In the Site Design section of the guidelines, it states that “Accommodations for
automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood as possible.”
Accommodations for automobiles include garage doors. Placing garage doors on the front
façade of a structure does not make the unobtrusive nor the automobile parked behind it.
Residential parking should be as stated on page 61 of the Guidelines:
“Parking areas and garages for houses should be located in the rear of the house,
with entrance from an alley or from a side driveway. Parking should not be in the
front yard. Original designs, materials, and placement of driveways should be
preserved. If the driveway must lead from the street through a side yard to parking in
the rear, brick or concrete tracks or narrow strips are recommended, with grass or
ground cover filling the median. Side or rear driveways should be gravel or smooth
concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick.”
The four examples of detached garages are in keeping with the guidelines since they access
the garage through a side yard and the garage is in the rear of the lot. T he guidelines would
suggest that the floor plan be modified so that the garage doors are on the rear of the structure
with access from the already paved alley.
In the Guidelines on page 55, it lists four principles to follow. They are listed on page 4 and 5 of
this report.
1. Building Orientation:
“The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
Page 42 of 63
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.”
The form of 1001 McMath could be viewed as a corner commercial building with residential
uses above which were common in Little Rock in the past. However, the other buildings in
those blocks adhered to a residential setback which accentuated the commercial form on the
corner. Originally there were three houses in the 1000 block of McMath as shown on the
Sanborn maps that had similar front yard setbacks. 1007 McMath is the only one of the three
houses which had uniform setbacks to survive.
2. Building Mass and Scale:
“New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the
area. This includes height and width.”
In the last hearing, the applicant stated that 1001 McMath was actually 38’-2” tall, three feet
taller than the application showed. The roof on 1001 slants to the east which diminishes the
mass as the viewer looks east. The houses proposed at 1003 and 1005 have a constant
ridgeline of 38’-8”. These two houses will be built taller and the farther one is to the east, the
more the height difference will be between the buildings. This would be the tallest structure in
the area of significance.
The guidelines state that “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic
structures in the area. This includes height and width.” These individual structures do not
comply with this statement. The individual houses ratios are unusually tall to their width. If the
entry feature is added, and is deemed to visually combine the structures into one, the overall
height to width could be more in line with other structures in the district.
3. Building Form
“Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)”
The house features a gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. Some historic houses originally had metal
roofs, some standing seam and some metal shingles. The roof shape and material is
appropriate to the district. The entrance area to each unit is to the rear of the structure. The
entry feature that was proposed might serve as the entry to the two units with the contemporary
porch, but the horizontal slats of wood do not differentiate the door versus the rest of the wall
section. More detail will be needed to be provided to assure that this reads as a combined entry
to the units. The windows in the units on three sides are random and lacking rhythm. In the
photos of houses, there is a discernable rhythm in the window placement. There is also a
commonality of window shapes that are rectangular in shape placed vertically on the façade.
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
Page 43 of 63
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The wall areas are to be either stained white oak, brick, or CorTen corrugated steel siding in a
vertical orientation. Wood siding is a common material in the district. Corrugated metal siding
on a wall surface is found on accessory buildings in the district. Half of 1005 and more than half
of 1003 is proposed to be built out of a material that is found on accessory structures on a non-
dominant façade.
The standing seam roof proposed was used on several historic structures in the district. The
garage door and entry doors into the units are flush with no glass inserts and no raised panels.
The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and windows will be
J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim.
This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a
whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Rhythm, Entrance area, and Wall areas. The
added submittal of the entry feature may affect the Proportion, Scale, or Massing of the
structure. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic house at
1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence. The rhythm of the
exterior walls on the east, north and south sides are undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area
to window area is inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The
scale and massing are also atypical to the neighborhood.
The ordinance states in Section 23-120 (f): “Generally, new construction shall be judged on its
ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence.” With the above listed
concerns, the proposed structure is not appropriate for the district.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2016
See discussion of 1003 McMath for general comments on this item.
Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer application to next meeting. Vice Chair Russell made a
motion to defer both applications to the November 2016 hearing and Commissioner Kelley
seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: November 14, 2016
Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on October 14, 2016 asking for a deferral
to the December 2016 agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the December 12,
2016 agenda.
Page 44 of 63
COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016
The applicant requested a deferral to the November 2015 hearing via email on October 14,
2016. A motion was made to accept the deferral to the December 2016 hearing by
Commissioner Ted Holder and was seconded by Commissioner Dick Kelley. The motion
passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: December 12, 2016
Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on November 18, 2016 asking for a
deferral to the January 2017 agenda. His email stated: We do not have time to update our
plans for 1003-1005 McMath Ave. I would like to defer to January 2017. If we change the plan
completely, I think we will request a withdrawal. Consider this as our deferral. We will inform
staff should we decide to change plan entirely. Sincerely, Page
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the January 9,
2017 agenda unless the application is to change completely. If that is the case, Staff
recommends withdrawal.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016
The applicant, Page Wilson, approached the podium and stated that he wanted to withdraw his
application at this time. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked him to verify if he was asking to withdr aw
both items. He replied yes.
Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to waive the bylaws in reference to Section 7
Withdrawals to allow a withdrawal of two items without the request being submitted in writing
more than five days in advance of the hearing. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote
passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick).
Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to withdraw the items at 1003 and 1005 McMath
without prejudice. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0
noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick).
Page 45 of 63
DATE: December 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Jimmy Moses, Magnolia Flats, LLC
ADDRESS: 401 E Capitol Avenue
COA REQUEST: Fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 507 Rock Street. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 1 and 2, Block 150,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This multifamily building was built c. 1934 as the Voss
Apartments. The 2006 survey form states: “Some
Craftsman detailing on the roof and decorative brick
detailing.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to
the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is a result of an enforcement action. This
item is only for the metal fence along Capitol Avenue
east of the apartment building. The fence around the
swimming pool area was included in that permit that was
not routed properly for HDC staff review.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On May 11, 2015, a COA was approved and issued to Moses Tucker for the construct ion of a
duplex at 507 Rock Street that included the fence in question.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. C.
Location of Project
Page 46 of 63
Capitol Avenue fence view from east Capitol Avenue fence view from west
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
Below is the section of the Guidelines referring to fences under which this fence was approved.
The Guidelines state the following:
3. Fences and Retaining Walls:
Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36”
Rear yard fencing—72”
Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50
years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on
physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron
or wooden fence.
Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Cast
iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and
maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic.
Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines.
Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood
fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than
three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the
building. For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the
scale of the building and grounds.
Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may
be 72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the
structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure.
Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not
stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link
fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street,
and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is
recommended.
Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on
Page 47 of 63
pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are
not appropriate.
New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards
that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the
materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood.
Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with
historic walls in the neighborhood.
The staff report of May 11, 2016 stated that the fence along Capitol Avenue was to be thirty-six
inches tall. In the hearing, Mr. Chris East, that was representing the application, stated that the
fences on Rock Street and Capitol Avenue were planned to be thirty-six inches tall. He
continued that a landscape plan would be submitted for the parking lot. That parking lot was to
be expanded and reconfigured.
The original proposal when the duplex was being considered was to fence the parking lot with
automatic gates and secure the parking lot. The parking lot was to be reconfigured and
additional spaces and a driveway from Rock Street added. The duplex is no longer under
consideration. In its place, a swimming pool has been built with a small gathering space that
was described in the original application. It appears that the parking lot reconfiguration and
expansion will not be built.
In the graphic below, the red line along Capitol Avenue represents the fence in question. It is
labeled “6’ Fence”. Perpendicular to Capitol Avenue is a three foot fence, shown in blue labeled
“3’ Fence (pre-existing). The 2006 Survey shows the three foot fence in the photos. It is
immediately to the west of the parking lot and to the east of the building. In the photo to the
right below, the white truck is parked in the alley. The three foot fence is shown just beyond the
red car and the jeep.
Aerial view of parking lot 3’ fence shown at the front of the red car.
The six foot fence does not provide any additional security to the parked cars. The cars are
parked in a non-secured parking lot that has the alley functioning as the aisle; the cars back into
the alley to leave and enter the parking lot through the alley. The fence was approved at the
thirty-six inch height but was installed at the six foot height.
This fence, along with others, begs the question of taller fences at the public right -of-way. This
fence serves to reinforce the negative stereotypes about the security of downtown. This fence
Page 48 of 63
does not totally enclose the parking. It does not provide required fencing around the swimming
pool area. This property is not a larger institutional property that sits on a larger parcel of land
that would traditionally have a taller fence. Staff cannot support a six foot fence in this location.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016
Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had not completed the notices as required.
Staff is recommending deferral of the item until the December 2016 Hearing. A motion was
made to defer to the December 2016 hearing by Commissioner Ted Holder and was seconded
by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open
positions.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission did not have
any questions of Staff.
Ray Nolan, of Moses Tucker, stated that it was an oversight on their part that the fence was
installed incorrectly. He asked for the Commission to allow them to keep the fence.
Chari BJ Bowen stated that a 3 foot fence had been approved but that a six foot fence had been
installed. He asked them why they did not contact Staff about the change as required. Jimmy
Moses stated that it was just a mistake and was unsure how it happened. He knows that it is
not in compliance. He explained that the project was to be developed in another way, but that
the plans had changed. He asked the Commission for forgiveness. He stated that there was a
variety of fences and does not believe that this fence is out of character.
Commissioner Toni Johnson appreciates that it was noted that it was a mistake. She cannot
support the application because it is on a main street and that it projects an image of an unsafe
neighborhood. She supports staff’s recommendation. She does support Moses Tucker’s work
downtown.
Commissioner Ted Holder said that he went to look at the fence before the meeting. He stated
that there is lots of controversy about fences in town. He said that they are intrusive when they
are six feet tall. He appreciates that they were upfront on the mistake. He agrees with
Commissioner Johnson.
Commissioner Dick Kelley said that the property across the alley has a three foot fence. He
believes that the six foot fence is out of proportion with the adjacent fence. He did state that he
supported their work downtown.
Mr. Moses spoke of Trapnall Hall fence and noted that the Rainwater Building that they
developed had a six foot fence. He stated that neighbors want more safety and their company
is trying to stabilize the neighborhood.
Page 49 of 63
William Page Wilson spoke of issues of continuity. Trapnall Hall is set back and the height of
the fence has to do with the scale of the building. MacArthur Park it is an urban historic area.
As a honest mistake, he would let the fence stay.
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the fence to remain as constructed at 6
foot. Commissioner Johnson seconded and the motion failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 5 noes, 1
open position, and 1 recusal (Frederick).
Those commissioners that had not voiced their reason, as to why they voted as they did, spoke
to that point.
Chair Bowen stated that it was non-conforming with existing structures on the size of fences.
Commissioner Russell stated that taller fences do not make a good neighborhood.
Mr. Moses thanked the Commission for hearing us and reminded them that they were across
the street from the Transit Center and feels positive with the associated crime and activity with
the transit center. He urged them to consider the upkeep and maintenance of the properties.
He admitted he was wrong and would live with the decision of the Commission.
Commissioner Russell agrees with you, though this commission just revised the guidelines. He
stated that Mr. Moses’s argument is faulty since the fence does not turn the corner and secure
any property and is perpendicular to a three foot fence.
Page 50 of 63
DATE: December 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties
ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street
COA REQUEST: Porch Restoration
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The
property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East
110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31
feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This single family house, which was converted to
multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form
states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice
and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and
doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and
entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent
businessman. House moved from original location at SW
corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for a Porch Restoration to replace the
porch per pictorial evidence.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to
fire damage.
On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance
of siding, windows and brick.
On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary
construction fence and interior remodel.
On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing
seam metal roof.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
Location of Project
Page 51 of 63
On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of
driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street.
2006 Survey east (front) elevation East (Front) elevation
Existing south elevation Existing north elevation
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The applicant wishes to reconstruct the porch that was originally built on the house according to
pictorial evidence. On other applications, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for
Rehabilitation are used. However, this project requires the Secretary of the Interiors Standards
for Restoration to be used. The manual The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the
Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995 by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, is
available at http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-guidelines.pdf It states
on page 117:
“Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form,
features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by
means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction
of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgr ading
of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to
make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.”
Those ten “Standards for Restoration” are as follows:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which
reflects the property’s restoration period.
Page 52 of 63
2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and
preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and
spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and
use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and
features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible,
identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future
research.
4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical
periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal.
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be
preserved.
6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture,
and, where possible, materials.
7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history
will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other
properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically.
8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the
gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials
will not be used.
9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved
in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.
Also, on page 119 of the document, it states:
“Rather than maintaining and preserving a building as it has evolved over time, the
expressed goal of the Standards for Restoration and Guidelines for Restoring
Historic Buildings is to make the building appear as it did at a particular—and most
significant—time in its history. First, those materials and features from the
“restoration period” are identified, based on thorough historical research. Next,
features from the restoration period are maintained, protected, repaired (i.e.,
stabilized, consolidated, and conserved), and replaced, if necessary. As opposed to
other treatments, the scope of work in Restoration can include removal of features
from other periods; missing features from the restoration period may be replaced,
based on documentary and physical evidence, using traditional materials or
compatible substitute materials. The final guidance emphasizes that only those
designs that can be documented as having been built should be re-created in a
restoration project.”
Furthermore, on page 119 of the document, it states:
“Most Restoration projects involve re-creating features that were significant to the
building at a particular time, but are now missing. Examples could include a stone
balustrade, a porch, or cast iron storefront. Each missing feature should be
Page 53 of 63
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Without sufficient
documentation for these “re-creations,” an accurate depiction cannot be achieved.
Combining features that never existed together historically can also create a false
sense of history. Using traditional materials to depict lost features is always the
preferred approach; however, using compatible substitute material is an acceptable
alternative in Restoration because, as emphasized, the goal of this treatment is to
replicate the “appearance” of the historic building at a particular time, not to retain
and preserve all historic materials as they have evolved over time. If documentary
and physical evidence are not available to provide an accurate re-creation of missing
features, the treatment Rehabilitation might be a better overall approach to project
work.”
The house was moved to its current location sometime between 1987 and 1913 according to
the Sanborn maps. The earliest photo available dates to 1890’s (see sheets P1.0 & P1.1).
Historic photos have guided the work of the architect and applicant to recreate the porch. The
porch will be built as close as possible to the photo that is included in the handouts. It is on
page P0.0 through P0.3 of the handout. The front door will remain.
The posts are square posts with beveled edges and applied trim. The brackets include sawn
brackets with trefoil cutouts and “Organic brackets shown on page P1.2. Page P0.2 shows the
turned spindles that are to be used in the reconstruction.
Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Side Elevation
Page 54 of 63
Historic photos of brackets Historic photos of door hood and
spindles
Historic photos of porch
The porch roof will be metal and sloped with no gutters or downspouts shown. The pitch is not
noted and will probably be seen from the ground. On page P0.3, it appears that the porch will
be a wood porch that is 10’ deep. Test pits were dug to establish the original location of the
porch. New steps and sidewalk will be installed.
The reconstructed porch, as described in the application documents, fulfills the standards as
written above.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission did not have
any questions of Staff.
Commissioner Dick Kelley left the meeting at this time. He would have to recuse from the
hearing since he owns property within the area of influence.
Mark Brown stated that Ed Sergeant has drawn plans as close as possible from the original
photos. Jill Judy stated that they wanted to return the structure to the original grandeur.
Commissioner Ted Holder asked who supplied to original photo. Ms. Judy replied that Tony
Curtis had supplied it to them. The house has similar architecture to other houses on the block.
Commissioner Toni Johnson was pleased that they took the time to do the research, drawings,
etc. She was glad that they were taking on this project.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell stated that the porch was pretty but it did not relate enough
information. He had questions on materials and construction. There was a discussion of the
Page 55 of 63
roof of the building. He continued with additional questions. What was the trim to be made
from? What are the proportions? Why were these details not submitted with the application?
Ms. Judy said that their architect, Ed Sergeant, will draw up the templates and to build the
brackets when construction starts. Commissioner Russell said that the majority of his questions
deal with the materials, size, scale, proportion, and things specified in the guidelines. He
wanted more detail in order to make a decision on this item.
Ms. Judy stated that she respected where Commissioner Russell was coming from but they did
not want to spend the additional money on all of the detail architectural work before gaining
approval from this Commission. She asked that Commissioner Russell trust them to do right on
the construction of the porch. Mr. Brown stated this was something that they think is exactly like
the original, but do not have the original plans. They request some leeway in construction.
Commissioner Russell says that his questions relate to the materials, size, and proportion. He
does not have enough information to make a decision.
The Chair asked Staff if they were comfortable with the submittals. Mr. Minyard said that they
provided a scalable elevation of the front and the side and provided a perspective. They did not
list every single material to be used. But Staff thought it was sufficient enough to make a
recommendation of approval. Mr. Minyard stated that this applicant has done both federal and
state income tax credits before. He stated that it could be asked if this one is going through that
process, but if they were, that would be an additional review that would ensure that the porch
was correct. Chair BJ Bowen asked if they were seeking Federal and State income tax credits.
Ms. Judy stated that they had been approved for part One and Part Two of the federal and State
income tax credit.
Ms. Judy stated that Commissioner Russell had let his opinion be known and with
Commissioner Kelley having to recuse himself and being short one position, and Commissioner
Frederick being new, she asked if they needed to withdraw the application. If they defer, is
there any way to get approved with an additional commissioner in the near future? Debra
Weldon stated that the bylaws provide for the Commission deferring for additiona l information if
Commissioner Russell wanted to do so. Deferrals need to be submitted five days in advance
per the bylaws. There was more discussion on procedure.
Commissioner Lauren Frederick stated that she felt comfortable voting on the item.
There was a motion made by Commissioner Holder for the Commission to ask for a deferral of
the application to the January 2017 hearing for additional information and for all of the
Commissioners to have time to review the application. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Russell and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position,
and 1 absent (Kelley) There was a clarification by Debra Weldon that a majority of
Commissioners present constitute a majority when voting on deferrals.
Page 56 of 63
DATE: December 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties
ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street
COA REQUEST: Demolish Wall
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The
property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East
110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31
feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This single family house, which was converted to
multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form
states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice
and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and
doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and
entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent
businessman. House moved from original location at SW
corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is to demolish part of a concrete wall in
the rear of this property.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to
fire damage.
On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance
of siding, windows and brick.
On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary
construction fence and interior remodel.
On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing
seam metal roof.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Two.
Location of Project
Page 57 of 63
On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of
driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street.
Sketch of property lines Wall section nearest house
Existing south elevation with wall to left Existing north elevation with wall to right
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The proposal is to remove the portion of the concrete wall that is on this property that was once
a part of a 4 stall garage structure.
The Guidelines address demolishing buildings from the neighborhood. It does not address
removing the remainder of parts of buildings. The roof structure and the doors (if it ever had
any) were removed prior to the current owner purchasing the property. The 1998 aerial photo
shows it without a roof or additional walls or doors.
The Sanborn maps below show the changes to the area. The current concrete wall was not
shown in the 1913 map. The 1913 and previous maps have different sheds of different sizes
and materials on the site. The wall in question appears to be part of the out building that first
appears in the 1939 Sanborn Map. It is labeled “A 4 Stalls Conc.” which translates to
Automobile use, 4 stalls, and concrete construction. Since the last map of 1950, the structure at
Page 58 of 63
900 Scott has been removed, the house at 113 E 9th has been demolished, the house at 908
burned last year and was removed, the shed at 908 was removed, and the roof at the concrete
garage stalls on the site had been removed.
1939 Sanborn Map (current building is labeled
Clinic)
Detail of wall to be removed (rotated to match
map to the right)
This application is to remove only the portion of the wall that lies within the property of 908 Scott
Street. The wall sits within inches of the property line. If the project scope is to return the house
and grounds to a pre-1913 look, it would be appropriate to remove the concrete wall. The wall
does provide security of sorts from the property at 908 Scott and the properties on Main Street
as it is a visual and physical barrier. The ultimate use of the 113 E 9th property will solidify the
argument to remove the wall.
Demolition of this wall was not included in the demolition of the house at 113 E 9th. That house
was demolished during the week of November 28, 2016. A deferral to a later hearing to add the
remainder of the wall to this application would resolve the issue of the wall in total. That would
require re-notifying the property owners.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
2. Obtaining a demolition permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016
For additional information, see item at 904 Scott Porch Reconstruction, HDC16-044. Ms. Judy
asked if the commission would defer this and the other item to keep them as a package.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the items for additional information. The motion
was seconded and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 open position, and 1
absent (Kelley). There was a clarification from Ms. Weldon that on procedural items as a
deferral, the majority in attendance is sufficient for passage.
Page 59 of 63
DATE: December 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties
ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street
COA REQUEST: Fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The
property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East
110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31
feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This single family house, which was converted to
multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form
states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice
and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and
doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and
entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent
businessman. House moved from original location at SW
corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for Fencing on the property. The front
yard fence will be a 36” tall steels picket fence. A 6’
wood fence will be in the rear yard and approximately half way (28’ from the front) on the south
side and start about 3’ from the front of the house on the north side. A 5’ wide gate will be at the
front sidewalk.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to
fire damage.
On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance
of siding, windows and brick.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Three.
Location of Project
Page 60 of 63
On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary
construction fence and interior remodel.
On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing
seam metal roof.
On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of
driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street.
East (Front) elevation Sketch of property owned by applicant
Existing south elevation Existing north elevation (Scale figure is 6’ tall)
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The proposal is to add fencing around the property. A 36” metal fence is proposed for the front
yard and part of the side yards and a 6’ wood privacy fence is proposed for the rear and balance
of the side yards.
The guidelines on page 58 state the following: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls:
Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36”
Rear yard fencing—72”
Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Cast iron
fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and
maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic.
Page 61 of 63
Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines.
Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood
fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than
three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the building.
For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the scale of the
building and grounds.
Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may be
72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at
least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure. Wood board
privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or
shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link fences may be
located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated
dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended.
Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial
or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not
appropriate.
The front yard fence will be a Montage II 36” tall steel picket fence by Ameristar with 1” square
steel 14 gauge pickets with triad finials painted black. That fence will be placed on the property
line and start on the south side of the house 28’ back from the existing front of the house. 28’ is
approximately half of the total house length. It is half of that wall section. It will continue along
Scott Street and then return along the north property line 2’ behind the existing front of the
house. This will include a 5’ entry gate at the sidewalk that will lead to the porch.
A wood privacy fence is proposed in the rear yard and the remainder of the side yards. This is a
6’ tall rough cedar fence prefabricated in 8’ long panels. The tops of the boards are dog eared.
A 6’ wood fence will be in the rear yard and approximately half way (28’ from the front) on the
south side and start about 2’ from the front of the house on the north side. The wood fence will
feature a 4’ wide gate on the south side of the house as well as a 4’ wide gate centered on the
west side. The wood fence will include sections of fence that will be perpendicular to the house
to totally enclose the rear yard.
The wood fence on the south side and rear of the house follows the guidelines for fence
placement. The wood fence on the north side does not follow the guidelines. This house sits
2.6’ (a little more than two and one half feet) from the property line. Part of the asphalt parking
lot next door is on this property. The 2’ mark on the north side where the fence is proposed to
start would enclose all of the north facing ground floor windows in the privacy fence area. The
bottom sills of the first floor windows are approximately 6’ off the ground. See picture on page
two of the report with the scale figure that is six feet tall. A six foot wood fence will not add
privacy to the ground floor windows when the top of the fence is level with the bottom sill of the
windows. It will keep persons 30 inches away from the house. A fence in that location could be
an issue when the house requires maintenance. The fence would be creating a space thirty
inches wide minus the width of the fence, rails and posts, approximately 24 inches wide.
The parking lot to the north is known unknown. Currently, the parking lot is rarely full. According
to the owner, he has two spaces rented on a monthly basis. The parking lot could see more use
if the parking across Scott Street for the apartments under construction is not sufficient. It could
Page 62 of 63
see more use for events (parties) at the apartments. A 6’ wood fence could diminish the effects
of headlights shining in the windows when the cars are running and parked facing the building.
Placing a three foot tall fence along this side of the house would in effect provide a ladder to
access the windows on the first floor. Therefore, a three foot fence is not an option. Having no
fence along this side of the house, but starting it at the break in the wall three-quarters of the
way back would be an option to enclose the rear yard.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
3. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016
For additional information, see item at 904 Scott Porch Reconstruction, HDC16-044. Ms. Judy
asked if the commission would defer this and the other item to keep them as a package.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the items for additional information. The motion
was seconded and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 open position, and 1
absent (Kelley). There was a clarification from Ms. Weldon that on proce dural items as a
deferral, the majority in attendance is sufficient for passage.
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff had none to report to the Commission.
Certificates of Compliance
A spreadsheet was delivered to the Commission earlier.
Calendar
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell made a motion to accept the calendar as submitted.
Commissioner Toni Johnson seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 1
absent (Kelley).
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication.
Chair BJ Bowen made a statement that it was a pleasure to serve as Chair for the last two
years and that the Commission had accomplished a lot during that time. He thanked all of them
for their hard work. Commissioner Russell had brought a lot of ideas to the table and
Commission Johnson also brought a lot of information and dialogue. He looks forward to 2017
and not sitting on the hot seat.
Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:55 p.m.
Attest:
r
Chair
Secretary /Staff
/ -- � -17
Date
Date
Page 63 of 63