Loading...
HDC_03 14 2016 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, March 14, 2016, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being seven (7) in number. Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Toni Johnson Page Wilson Jennifer Carman Rebecca Pekar Dick Kelley Members Absent: none City Attorney: Shawn Overton Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Ralph Wilcox Mary Kelley Callie Williams Rett Tucker Glenda Bell Brian Duncan Troy Deal Jenna Dixon Michael Puckett Heather Nelson Jill Judy Jim Pfeifer Mark Brown Jimmy Moses Frank Barksdale James Sullivan Rhea Roberts Jamie Moses Ray Nolan Approval of Minutes A motion to approve both sets of minutes from December 14, 2015 and from January 11, 2016 were made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Jennifer Carman. There was one change by Commissioner Rebecca Pekar that was given to staff before the meeting. That change will be incorporated in the signed copy. The motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 2 DATE: March 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 3819 W 13th Street REQUEST: Nomination of the Lee Theater to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 3819 W 13th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 5 Block 7, W B Worthen Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." 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 the Lee Theater 3 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is 4 filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Lee Theater to the Arkansas Register. While damaged by neglect and the intrusion of elements due to a roof collapse, the Lee Theater maintains some integrity of its structural features and remains a significant example of segregated theater construction in Arkansas, which “represented and effort to design places that shaped the behavior of individuals and, thereby, managed contact between whites and blacks a in general.” Thus, given that fact that the Lee Theater is one of three former theaters remaining in Little Rock and the only theater that was built before WWII, the Lee Theater is being nominated to be placed on the Arkansas Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion A for its association with the built environment of segregation that permeated the Jim Crow south prior to the Civil Rights movement. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2016 5 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. Callie Williams, AHPP, was available to answer any questions. There was a discussion on why this property was being nominated to the Arkansas Register only. The structure has a lack of integrity but does have local significance. The Arkansas Registers has lesser standards than the National Register does. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell made a motion to add this property to the Arkansas Registry. Commissioner Page Wilson seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. 6 DATE: March 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 621 E 16th Street REQUEST: Nomination of the Kleinschmidt House to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 621 E 16th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 5, Block 12, Braggs Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." 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 Gustave B Kleinschmidt House 7 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is 8 filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Kleinschmidt House to the National Register. The Gustave B Kleinschmidt House is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its association with Gustave Kleinschmidt’s development of the local areas as well as under Criterion C as an example of an early 20th century Classical Revival style cottage, all with local significance. The house illustrates the nearly three decade period of investment and development of the local neighborhood by Gustave B. Kleinschmidt, who helped to create a diverse and thriving community through the construction of over 40 Colonial Revival and Craftsman cottages. These properties world set a pattern of development for the surrounding area. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and C. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lace individual distinction. Page 9 of 40 COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. Callie Williams, AHPP, was available to answer any questions. Ms. Williams stated it was nominated under Criterion A and C because of his development activities in the area an d the architecture of his house that he lived in and built. Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to add the property to the National Register and Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. Page 10 of 40 DATE: March 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 2801 Roosevelt Road REQUEST: Nomination of the Empire Life Insurance Company of America Building to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 2801 Roosevelt Road. The property’s legal description is “PT NW NW SECTION 16-1N-12 MPDA BEG NW COR TH S466' E466' N466' W466' TO BEG LESS & EXC 0.08 AC MOL FOR ROAD R/W PER DEED 2014-004393 in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." 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 Empire Life Insurance Company of America Building Page 11 of 40 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governmen ts”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is Page 12 of 40 filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along w ith the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Empire Life Insurance Company of America Building to the National Register. The Empire Life Insurance Company of America Building represents an outstanding example of an International-style building in Little Rock. The International style has become one of the most influential styles since World War II, especially with respect to the design of office buildings. As it says in the book “The International Style.” The principles of the style that appeared already plainly by 1922 in the projects and the executed buildings of the leaders, still control today an ever increasing group of architects throughout the world.” As an outstanding and award winning example of the International style in Arkansas, the Empire Life Insurance Company of America Building is being nominated to the National Register with local significance under Criterion C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lace individual distinction. COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2016 Page 13 of 40 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. Ralph Wilcox, AHPP, was available to answer any questions. This building was designed by local architects Wittenberg Deloney and Davidson. This has some aspects of the early office park complex. This property is to be reviewed under Criterion C only. Commissioner Page Wilson made a motion to add the property to the National Register and Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. A note was made that the State Review Board will hold its meeting on April 6th at 10:00 in room 170 of the Tower Building. Page 14 of 40 DATE: March 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Glenda Bell ADDRESS: 1315 Cumberland Street COA REQUEST: Window replacement and front door replacement PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1315 Cumberland Street. The property’s legal description is “Part of Lots 4 and 5 Beginning at the SE corner of Lot 4, thence N 12 3’, E 140’, S36 2’, W 140’ thence N25’ to the point of beginning, Block 48, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built c 1912. The 2006 survey form states: “This one story plain /traditional house has few distinguishing elements. The front porch has craftsman touches and the rear shed was added.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action for window replacement and front door replacement without prior Certificate of Appropriateness. The application is to seek approval of the new windows and door. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 4, 2013, a COC was approved and issued to Jerry Malone for Glenda Bell for siding, porch and brick repair. 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 15 of 40 Existing west elevation Photo from 2006 survey PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The guidelines state in Section IV. Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation on page 44: 1. Doors: Original doors and/or their entranceway surrounds, sidelights, transoms, and detailing should not be removed or changed. Replacement of missing original doors should be like or very similar to the original in style, materials, glazing (glass area), and lights (glass pane configuration.) Doors should not be added to the primary façade or to a secondary façade where readily visible from the street. If doors are added to an inconspicuous secondary or rear wall, they should be similar to the original doors. 2. Windows: Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their original materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded, beveled, or patterned glass, which is a character- defining feature of a building, should not be removed. Windows should not be added to the primary façade or to a secondary façade if easily visible. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Wood clad windows may be appropriate if the structure originally had wood windows. Wood clad windows are wood construction windows with an outer coating of vinyl or metal that facilitates easier maintenance. Windows of 100% vinyl are not appropriate in the historic district since they were not historically installed in the structures. Unless they originally existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building. Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 16 of 40 According to the applicant, this house has been in their family for years and the house was remodeled in 1970. At that time, the aluminum windows were installed as well as the front window becoming a large fixed pane window. The 1970’s windows were aluminum with 2 over 2 horizontal panes. The front door was changed to a slab wood door (without any windows or ornamentation.) Other changes to the house have been approved as maintenance items, replacing the railing on the porch and work on the soffits of the porch. The items for review in this application are only the front door and the windows. As of now, only five single windows have been installed and the front and back door. There are five additional single windows and five additional double windows that have yet to be installed. The windows that have been installed are a 310 Series single hung aluminum in white by PlyGem windows. The have 6 over 6 muntins. They appear to be the same size as the 1970 windows. It is unknown if the 1970 windows were the same size as the original windows. The door is a 3 panel door with an oval glass in the top two-thirds of the door. Being a Folk Victorian house, the windows most likely would have been a 2 over 2 vertical pane window as shown on page 45 of the guidelines. The front door would have had glass in the top half of the door, probably one pane without muntions. The windows on the porch and the front window appear to be the same height. Staff does not believe that the 6 over 6 windows are appropriate for this style of house. The more appropriate pane arrangement would be a 2 over 2 vertical or a 1 over 1. The age of this house would state that the windows were originally wood windows. The Guidelines state that a wood clad window is appropriate in this case. Staff suggests that the applicant amend her application to include either 2 over 2 vertical pane or a 1 over 1 wood clad windows with a full screen for all windows. Staff suggests that the single fixed pane front window be replaced with a two ganged windows to match the single windows. Staff suggests that the applicant resubmit for a more appropriate front door. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 2 over 2 vertical pane window 1970 renovation windows Page 17 of 40 New installed front door STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. Glenda Bell, the applicant, stated that her contractor told her that he had received all of the necessary approvals. She stated that the windows were supposed to be one over one. She does not remember exactly what the windows looked like, especially the front window. The windows have never been airtight or secure. She was trying to handle this project for her 93 year old aunt. She wanted the building to look good. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar was unsure exactly what the application was. Commissioner Page Wilson asked if she could afford to replace the windows and doors. Ms. Bell stated yes that they could. She continued that they were trying to fix the house up for sale. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if it was a contributing structure. Mr. Minyard stated that it was listed as contributing even with the metal windows. Page 18 of 40 Chair BJ Bowen stated that if the commission denied this application, she would have to wait one year to reapply for the same items. The other option would be to ask for a deferral and revise your application. She stated that she did not want to wait a year. Vice Chair Russell commented that the same application would have to wait a year, but the same windows on a new application would be to wait a year. He recommended to go with the staff recommendation. Ms. Bell asked if the windows did not have the mullions in them, would they be appropriate. Commissioner Johnson and stated that vinyl windows are not appropriate. Commissioner Johnson read what the guidelines state about replacement windows. Ms. Bell stated that she wished to amend her application to match staff recommendation. Vice Chair Russell asked staff if she could amend her application substantially in that way. Mr. Minyard said that the issue would be that the Commission would be leaving it with staff to interpret if the windows met the requirements of the Commission. The Door is another issue. The Commission would either accept what is there or dictate another design. Commissioner Johnson asked if she asked to amend her application to a door that would be one hof to three quarter glass front, would that work. Mr. Minyard stated that it would work. Commissioner Wilson agreed. Ms. Bell stated that there are 15 total windows to be replaced. Are we talking all of the windows or just the ones that are seen from the street? Mr. Minyard stated that the Commission only reviews those visible from the street, the north, west and a few on the south side. She commented that she would want all of the windows to match. Commissioner W ilson suggested that she find local sources for affordable windows. The summation of the discussion was that she would replace the windows with one over one wood windows clad in metal or vinyl. The wood door on the front would have 1/2 or 3/4 glass panel at the top of the door. Ms. Bell amended her application to reflect this change. Commissioner Johnson stated that the QQA keeps a list of contractors. Ms. Bell asked if the large front glass window would be two single ganged window and the Commission said yes. Commissioner Jennifer Carman made a motion to approve the amended application and Vice Chair Russell seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. Page 19 of 40 DATE: March 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Troy Deal ADDRESS: 901 Cumberland COA REQUEST: Infill single family house PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 901 Cumberland. The property’s legal description is “The West 93.35’ of lot 1 and the North 25’ of the West 93.35’ of Lot 2 of Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This is a vacant lot. The Sanborn maps show that in 1897, there was a one story house at 303 Ninth facing north. The house at 309 was there in its current form. In 1913, the two houses that are there today are shown on the map with the lot in review vacant. This application is for construction of an infill single story single family house. In addition to this COA, there is an item for a PRD Planned Residential Development that has been approved at the Planning Commission to subdivide the original lots 1, 2 and 3, (houses at 309 E Ninth Street, 909 S Cumberland and the vacant lot) into three separate lots to accommodate the new structure. This item also approved the setbacks of the new house. This will not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until your approval of the COA. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. 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 20 of 40 The four houses on the 900 block of Cumberland. Contributing and Non-contributing map Proposed Front (Cumberland Street) Façade of house for March 14, 2016 hearing PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: 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 Page 21 of 40 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. 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. Page 22 of 40 (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 …related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9) …related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10) 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 (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 Page 23 of 40 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 style of the proposed house is contemporary. GENERAL DESIGN The house features multiple levels of flat roofs with accent pylons and chimney masses of standard concrete block masonry. The exterior materials are cedar horizontal plank siding and Hardie panel siding. 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 From the materials list included: The front door will be a custom wood door with a glass insert. The door on the south side behind the fence will have a storefront clear anodized aluminum finish. Page 24 of 40 Windows will be storefront clear anodized aluminum frames. Lighting will be can lights above the porch and on the front façade over front two bedrooms. At the garage, there will be two wall mounded sconces in aluminum. Box gutters will be on the house instead of the typical linear gutters. Downspouts will be on the north, east and south sides of the structure and the downspouts will color match the underlying material. There will be parapets on the roof. The roof will be of a PPO Firestone membrane. There wil l be aluminum flashing on the top of the parapet. SITING The front yard (Scott Street) setback will be 15’ and the Ninth Street setback will be 13’. These two setbacks will be somewhat closer than the others on Scott or Ninth Streets. The side yard and rear yard setbacks will be 5’ each. HEIGHT The Guidelines state on page 55 under 3. Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.) The existing four houses on Cumberland are all two story houses with pitched roofs with combinations of gables and dormers facing Scott to give them more perceived height. The house on Ninth is a one story with pitched roof. There are no flat roof single family contributing houses in the district. There are, within a block of this application, some outside the area of influence, two story flat roofed apartments and one and two story flat roofed commercial buildings. This house will have two or three steps into the house unlike the rest on the block face which have a raised foundation with 5 or more steps onto the porches. PROPORTION The proportion of this proposed house is rather low and horizontal unlike the taller or box like proportion of the four square and Queen Anne houses on the block. RHYTHM is defined as the harmonious or orderly recurrence of compositional elements at regular intervals, including the location of doors and the placement of windows, symmetrically or asymmetrically and their relative positions. This house does not have a much rhythm as others in the area do when comparing the location of windows and doors. ROOF AREA The Guidelines state on page 55 under 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.) There are no contributing single family houses in the district with a flat roof. This one story single family home’s flat roof does not “blend” as the ordinance requires in Sec 23-120(f) nor it is “similar” as the guidelines recommend on page 55 under New Construction. ENTRANCE AREA The entrance faces Cumberland Street but does not have the proportion of the other porches on the blockface as defined as a ratio of porch width to overall façade width. WALL AREAS On Cumberland Street, most of the façade is horizontal wood siding with Hardie board accents. The Hardie Board will be panels 24” wide that create a frame around the sides and top of the wall. On the 9th Street side, The Hardie board panels constitute the majority of the façade with horizontal wood siding accent on garage door only. The Hardie board panels vary from 3’ by 8’ vertical panels to 2’ by 4’ horizontal panels. The east side will be all Page 25 of 40 horizontal Hardie panels 2’ tall. The south side is mostly Hardie panel with some wood siding. The south façade will be mostly obscured by a 6’ privacy fence. DETAILING This house, being a contemporary house, has more subtle details than others. The details will lie in the joining of the Hardie panels and the wood siding , the joining of the window units and doors, etc. FAÇADE The house features multiple heights of walls in the structure. The exterior materials are cedar horizontal plank siding and Hardie panel siding. The windows are rather unadorned as is typical in contemporary houses. SCALE This is a one story with flat roof which does not blend with the neighborhood. The scale of porch is smaller than the rest on block. Overall, this house will read as inconsistent with the block in terms of height. The Guidelines state on page 55 under 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.) MASSING The massing of this house in not consistent with the houses on the blockface nor the rest of the houses on the block. This one-story house is shorter than the adjacent one story house on Ninth Street and noticeably shorter than the rest of the houses on Cumberland and the block. The combination of lower height and larger width on the front (57’ which is longer than the original width of a lot) makes the mass of t his structure incompatible. On page 55 of the Guidelines, it states: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. FENCE The fence will be cedar or redwood in a horizontal application. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there two calls of a neutral nature regarding this application. Based on the above review of the general design, height, proportion, roof area, entrance area, scale, and massing, Staff cannot support this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. He noted that there were one person in opposition to the project and one neutral. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell asked about the setback of the building. He wanted to know if the 15 foot setback was within 10 percent of the setback of the other homes. Mr. Minyard said he did not measure them but it appears to be closer than the other houses on Cumberland. The map is drawn to scale. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked about the size of the lot width. Mr. Minyard clarified the proposed lot size and configuration. The lot width along Cumberland will be 75 feet, larger than the typical lot. Vice Chair Russell asked if this was a corner lot and if the front door was on Cumberland. Mr. Minyard stated this was correct. Commissioner Toni Johnson commented about the height in respect to 309 E 9th and of the houses on Cumberland. Commissioner Page Wilson asked if it was the argument of Staff that it could not have a parapet roof since it was a house. Mr. Minyard responded that it was not. Vice Chair Russell spoke of Page 26 of 40 the contributing houses in the area and flat roof of the application. Commissioner Johnson stated that they were talking about the contributing houses in the area. Troy Deal, the application, stated that this would be one of the first new homes north of 630. It was their dream home. The 1960s architecture is the anchor for the design, working off the Arkansas Arts Center. They submitted a letter from Margaret Kemp in support to of the application in addition to a packet of photos of the site and general area. They stated that they wanted a single story house, a modern cottage. He continued that they did not need or desire a two story house and wanted access to the courtyard area from the main part of the house. He said that they had met with Staff to talk materials and planning process. They wanted the house to look different with materials of today. Mr. Deal continued that they adjusted the setback of the garage to 18’ in response to the Planning Commission concerns for off street parking. They added a covered front porch that is 17 feet long and lined up the house with the houses to the south. Commissioner Toni Johnson commented that the plan I beautiful but is concerned about the 900 block of Cumberland with the four two story gabled homes and that the proposed house does not continue the proportions of the existing houses. She continued about the rhythm of the other structures to the south. Mr. Deal stated that the top of the gable on 309 e 9th is 22’ tall, and the top of the concrete on the proposed house is 21’ tall. He stated that it should not match the historic houses along Cumberland. Commissioner Johnson stated that the form itself does not blend and suggested they look at the historic streetscape. This structure changes the rhythm of the street. She does not feel that it is appropriate for the corner. Commissioner Wilson asked if the foundation could be raised. Mr. Deal stated that it could be raised but it was designed for elderly living. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar commented that there were no peaks on the roof. If it blends, it would preserve the feel of the neighborhood. She feels that it is too jarring and out of place. Mr. Deal stated that there is a commercial building across the street. Commissioner Pekar felt that there should be more of what is there now. Commissioner Wilson stated that Mark Brown and Jill Judy (the owners of the property) have appeared before the commission before. He said that someday that something would be built there. He doubted that it would be big houses that match the foursquare. The house at 909 Cumberland (two story blue house) will be single family, and then there is Poe travel with two houses and then a five plex on the corner of 10th. He stated that he did not have any problem with the design and talked about the variety of the neighborhood architecture. Michael Puckett, the applicant, spoke of the changes of sizes in the area. Mr. Deal, also spoke of the Heiple Wiedower study of infill with its variable height and sizes. Commissioner Wilson spoke of historically a mixture of sizes and mixed income in the neighborhood. Commissioner Johnson stated that her comment was not about size of structure but was about the low and horizontal nature of the house versus the tall and vertical aspect of the existing houses on Cumberland. She stated that a pitched roof would be needed. Commissioner Jennifer Carman echoed Commissioner Johnson’s comments. She spoke of the strong statement of continuity and the rhythm of the houses along Cumberland and that this is a Page 27 of 40 unique street in the continuity. She sees the streetscape as a whole. She stated that corner lots are important and the jarring effect of the differing rhythm. Mr. Deal states that it will be another 20 years before new house will be built on this lot. Vice Chair Russell spoke of the siting of the house and that a front door on 9th street would be an easier sell. On the courtyard, it is an opportunity to break from the Charles Thompson houses to the south. He said that it related more to the commercial across the street. The height of the building does not relate to the pink house. The mass change is too jarring and changes too many times for this lot. The proportion and masses change on 9th and Cumberland. He feels that the roof is okay and the house has a nice entrance. Vice Chair Russell continued that the thinks the design is not successful yet for this site. He stated that there are lots of examples to make the case to make the house blend more. The height on Cumberland is more important than the height on 9th. A sloped roof is not a condition for him. Vice Chair Johnson recommends deferring the item to work on the design. Mr. Deal said that if a pitched roof is a deal breaker, to please let him know now. He wanted to get feedback from the Commissioners. Vice Chair Russell said that the design is not successful yet, but it was not the place for the commission to design the house for them. Commission Wilson said that he was fine the way it is. Commissioner Pekar suggested to start with the guidelines, read through them, and then modify the design from there. Commissioner Carman stated she could not give concrete instructions, but suggested that they check the guidelines. She said to consider the height of the roof and that it is more about the rhythm along the rooflines. Mr. Puckett said that they could change the massing of the structure. He does not want to change to the overall design, but could tweak it. Commissioner Carman stated that she wanted to see an elevation of both street views with the houses drawn to scale. Commissioner Johnson commented on the setback that was close and that the foundation was lower on their structure. She commented on the streetscape being compose of squares and triangles and the rhythm of the streetscape, the proportion of the massing, and the proposed house being low and flat and square when everything else was not. He also mentioned the rhythm of the windows and doors. Commissioner Carman commented on the sequential view of the street with the rhythm of the windows and visual line of the windows. Commission Wilson stated that the windows are plain like the windows in the T hompson houses. Commission Johnson sated that she was looking at the form, mass and the streetscape, not at window mullions. Chair BJ Bowen asked if they wanted to defer their application. The applicant said yes. Jill Judy, the property owner of subject property and owner of multiple properties in the district, commented on the peach colored house and that there were commercial structures historically on 9th Street. This property should not be held to a strict residential guidelines review. She continued that the public housing across the street is not going away and that Cumberland Street traffic is one way south. She stated that it was not the most residential of vacant lots. She Page 28 of 40 thinks that the house would be an asset to the neighborhood. She wishes that there was a way to get to yes on this project. Mark Brown, the property owner of subject property and owner of multiple properties in the district, commented on the small size of the subject lot. He also stated that the Thompson houses on the block are too big for today’s market. He spoke of the parapet, projections of the house, height, etc. He stated that the Commission decides which portions of the guidelines are important and which are not. He said that maybe a coffee shop would be better, but a vacant lot is an eyesore. He thinks the design is good, but not exactly the same as the neighborhood. Commissioner Wilson stated that 100% of the block face was in support of the house. There was no one that spoke in opposition to the house. Rhea Roberts, QQA Director, stated that the QQA was neutral on this application. They are supportive of contemporary architecture. The four houses on Cumberland are similar in massing and style. The pitched roof is appropriate, but the flat roof is not wholly inappropriate. They suggested raising the roof or the foundation, changing the setback of the rooms on the front of the house and enlarging the windows on the 9th street side. With changes to the house, it could be an asset to the neighborhood. There was a motion to defer the application to the next April 11, 2016 by Vice Chair Russell to modify the design. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Carman and the motion passed by a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. The applicant was informed that the revisions would need to be in Staff’s inbox at 8:00 am on March 28th. Page 29 of 40 DATE: April 11, 2016 APPLICANT: Ray Nolan, Moses Tucker ADDRESS: 901 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Infill multi-family structure PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 901 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1-6, Block 25, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This is a vacant lot. The 1889 and the 1892 Sanborn maps show three houses along Scott Street, a duplex at 901/905 Scott and two houses to the south. The 1897 and 1913 Sanborn maps show an additional house facing Scott with the duplex still on the north corner at 901/905 Scott. The 1939 map shows three houses facing Scott with the duplex at the corner gone. The 1939-1950 map shows the filling station on the north corner and two houses to the south. This application is for new construction of a 53 unit one and two bedroom multifamily apartment building. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 10, 2013, a COA was approved and issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy to demolish the filling station at 901 Scott Street. 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 30 of 40 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: 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. Proposed Front (West) Façade for March 14, 2016 hearing Page 31 of 40 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 (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 …related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 32 of 40 property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9) …related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10) 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 (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, Page 33 of 40 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 West (Front) façade for March 14, 2016 hearing ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The style of the proposed apartments is traditional. GENERAL DESIGN The apartments front along Scott Street and built to the property line. Nine of the units that are on the ground floor facing Scott Street will have exterior doors with outside raised patios that will be fenced. All of the units will be accessed through interior hallways and stairwells. The three story building will feature pitched roofs with accent gables. The facades will be of brick and Hardie plank siding. Windows will be of a vertical proportion with accenting flower boxes. The entire site will be surrounded by a metal fence. Parking and amenities will be on the east side of the building. Page 34 of 40 There will be awnings over the patio doors clad in Hardiepanel vertical siding with Hardietrim board accents. All exterior doors will feature similar awnings over the doors. 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 List of materials used with some items described being in the handouts: Louvers to be in the top of the gables on the east and west side are Ruskin ELF30V in white. Chimney caps are to be custom similar to the Artisan Wright Custom Chimney shroud in the handouts. Roof shingles to be Atlas Stormmaster Slate in Hearthstone. Gutters will be 5x5 inch in white with white downspouts. Hardie trim will be 5/4 boards with smooth finish. Brick will be from Antique Brick and Block in Rosedale Blend. Typical window on the second and third floors will be 32”x60” Comfort View Products Single hung in white with 3 vertical over one pane arrangement. Typical windows on the first floor will be three ganged windows the same as the upper floors. The Hardie Plank lap siding will have a 4” Exposure. The patio doors will be Masonite steel door with 3 equal horizontal panels with a painted finish. Flower boxes will be placed on the most of the west facing widows. They are to be Hood and lattice 36” Simple Elegance Cage ow similar. Wall sconces are Braxton Sconces in weathered zinc finish. SITING The building is proposed to be built on the property line along Scott Street. The setbacks on 9th and 10th streets are approximately 10 feet. The building is 63’ deep. The parking lot is between the building and the alley. There is no access to the parking lot from the alley. Entrance to the parking lot will be from- both 9th Street and 10th Street. The parking lot will have about 50 parking spaces. Landscaping in the parking lot has yet to be reviewed against the landscape ordinance. Tree location and bed areas may change. The planter beds along Scott Street, as well as the trees, lights and sidewalk arrangement are in the public right-of-way and are not reviewed by the commission. HEIGHT The height of the building is proposed to be 50’ tall. This is taller than the houses across the street and on the block. The remaining houses across Scott are all two story houses and the apartments across the alley are also two story. The vast majority of contributing Proposed Brick Proposed shingles Page 35 of 40 residential structures in the area of influence are two story. The two commercial structures are one story. The topography slopes on this lot. The first floor finished floor level will step down the site so that the finished floor level will vary from 2.5’ to 3.5 feet depending on the actual conditions. Therefore, the fencing and the raised patios will stair step down the slope. PROPORTION The proportion of the overall building is long but vertical. The chimneys that are placed at the ends of the buildings ads to the verticality. RHYTHM The building has a regular rhythm of windows along all of the facades. The variation between brick and siding give an irregular rhythm to the façade that breaks up the massing. The rhythm of the gates and fences on the raised patios give the effect of separate townhouse units, but the gables on the roof do not line up with the brick/siding accents on the façade. ROOF AREA The three story building will feature 8 ½ / 12 pitched roofs with 8 accent gables facing Scott Street with the long axis of the primary roof running parallel with Scott Street. The rear façade has the same gables. ENTRANCE AREA The building will have four entrances, one in the center of each façade. The south and north side entrances will have handicap ramps incorporated into the walkways. The west entrance will be the main one and will have gates in line with the gates and fences of the raised patios. The west entrance lobby will be in the center of the building. The entrance are on the east side of the building will be partially obscured by the 7’ tall concrete block wall surrounding the swimming pool at the back of the building. The individual raised patio entrances will feature cast-in-place concrete steps and concrete patio surface. WALL AREAS The variation between brick and siding give an irregular rhythm to the façade that breaks up the massing. However, if the brick accent areas were to extend to the roof or the top of the gables, the building would be more likely to look like row houses instead of apartments. The pattern of brick, siding, brick, siding would appear as separate houses to more reflect the separate houses across Scott Street. DETAILING The detailing of this building is more traditional with wide trim boards around the windows, doors and corners of the building. Flower boxes will be installed at the window sill of most of the west facing windows. Wide trim boards enhance an exaggerated cornice in some parts of the building. FAÇADE The north and south facades appear to be two houses that have been connected. The center area will feature Hardiepanel vertical siding smooth texture with Tamly Xtreme trim with 1/2” reveals. This detail will be at all four entrances. The West (front) entrance wi ll have windows on the second and third floor. The west entrance will also feature a railing that matches the fencing over the entry awning. SCALE The scale of the building is quite larger than the surrounding buildings. Page 36 of 40 MASSING The massing of the building is reduced with the setbacks of the façade and the differing treatment of the materials with the brick and siding. The raised patios along Scott Street soften the massing by introducing a more human scale element to the street. FENCE The fence along the east property line at the alley will be a 6’ wood privacy fence with the salts laid horizontally. The fence along the other three property lines will be an Ameristar Montage Classic welded steel fence. The fences along Scott Street at the raised patios are shown below. There will be 6’ tall gate with a 42” fence on the raised patio. Fencing around the dumpsters will be 10’ tall concrete block walls with painted skim coat. The gates will be to match iron fencing on site with a solid metal plate behind the gates. Gates will swing into the right-of-way and Public Works will need to issue a franchise permit for that. Wood Slat Privacy Fence Ameristar Montage Plus Classic Fence Detail of fencing at private entrances along Scott Street for March 14, 2016 hearing The project described has many nuances. The style blends with the surrounding contributing structures: the majority of structures are contributing in the area of influence. The building sits Page 37 of 40 on the Scott Street right-of-way, which is closer than the buildings on the other side of Scott Street. This is necessary to fit the parking lot on the east side of the building in the rear of the building. The height is a three story building with a raised foundation and is generally one story taller than the surrounding buildings. The building is a long building at 277 feet long. The massing has been broken up with the differing brick and siding details. The building could blend with the area better by changing the pattern of brick and siding. There are eight gables on the west side of the building. If the brick were to extend to the from the bottom of the raised patios to the top of every other gable, in addition to the existing setback variation in the floor plan, this would better emulate the rhythm of single family structures across the street. The perceived mass when walking down the Scott Street sidewalk could be lessened by varying the height of the gates below the accompanying railing on the raised patio. 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. 2. Obtain Franchise Permit for trash dumpster enclosure gate swinging into right -of-way. 3. Approval of the Landscape plan. COMMISSION ACTION: March 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item including the Staff recommendation. He stated that there were two phone calls in opposition, three neutral emails and eleven emails in support of deferral. Commissioner Page Wilson commented that the drawing state that they are a progress set. He asked if we had a final construction set. Mr. Minyard stated that we did not and described the process of checking the elevations through the building permitting process and on site inspections. Rett Tucker, of Moses Tucker, stated that they tried to meet the guidelines of the district for this building. There are other three story buildings in the district and across Scott Street are two story buildings. He listed other three story buildings in the district. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar asked about the power lines along the street. Mr. Tucker said that they will be moved to the alley. Commissioner Pekar continued about the lack of green space in the area and mentioned the dog park. Mr. Tucker responded with the nine entrances along Scott Street, it would be more entrances that if you had six single family houses. Commissioner Pekar noted that there is not any parking on Scott Street, where the guest parking was going to be, and the overall number of parking spaces. Mr. Minyard responded that this was UU zoning district and that zero parking spaces were required. He stated that the job of the commission was to look at materials of the parking lot and the location of the lot. Mr. Tucker hoped that every one of the tenants does not have a car eventually and thinks that overly large parking lots are counterproductive. He spoke of the zoning regulations, with the height, mass and parking. Commissioners Jennifer Carman and Dick Kelley left the meeting because of their conflict of interest. They did not return for the rest of the meeting. Page 38 of 40 James Sullivan, of AMR Architects, described the building with some of it being 6’-0” back from the property line and some 8’-8” back. The portions of the building that are shown in red are farther back from the property line. He also spoke of the three foot planting strip in the right of way area along the building that will be requested. Commissioner Pekar said that she went out and measured from the street and sidewalk to the proposed setback. Mr. Minyard reminded the Commission that they did not review items that are in the right-of-way. Chair BJ Bowen reminded the applicant that they would need four of the five members present voting in favor to have their item approved. Commissioner Wilson stated that in UU that they could build right up to the property line. Vice Chair Russell stated that that has nothing to do with the Commissions review. Mr. Tucker commented on the Legion Village Apartments was set on the property line. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell said that this commission does not set precedence. He continued that this project is not appropriate for this site and that the height is a serious issue. The proposed building towers over the other buildings. Mr. Sullivan distributed handouts to the commissioners and Staff. He spoke of the three story blue house at 1004 Scott Street with a taller roof. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that the blue house is technically a two and one half story building and his is a three and one half. She asked what was happening in the dormer space and if he could modify the roof by lowering it. She asked what the building would look like if it was a two and one half story building. Mr. Sullivan spoke of keeping the floor to ceiling heights and the number of desired units. Commissioner Pekar stated that this may make the building more attractive. Commissioner Johnson commented that the building was huge. She commented that maybe the structure could be broken into three separate structures. She continued that she appreciated the different materials but the overall massiveness was an issue. She spoke of the emails that talked about the scale of the building. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated that the blue house was originally built as a single family house. Park Avenue apartments on Commerce have a courtyard area with a low fence with sidewalks that are inviting. The church that was mentioned does not have anything to do with the project. The Cumberland Tower does not help your argument. Mr. Sullivan stated that the comments were height related. Commissioner Pekar said that the massiveness is overwhelming. She stated that the streetscape should be cohesive. Vice Chair Russell commented on the 3 foot tall brick wall supporting the raised patios and the 42 inch fence on top. Mr. Sullivan stated that it did provide interaction with the street. Vice Chair Russell disagreed and stated that all interaction would be through the bars of the fence. Brian Duncan, owner of the print shop at Cumberland and 9th, spoke in favor of the application. He appreciates that they are doing something in the area. His only concern is the overflow parking. He has a large parking lot to the east and will have to deal with the illegal parkers. The site has been a hangout for undesirable types for some time. Commissioner Johnson asked him his hours of operation. He stated it was normally 7-5 pm but his workers are there longer. The Phillips apartments to the south can park on his lots. The cars Page 39 of 40 must be removed by morning. All of the available spaces are used by his employees and customers. Mark Brown, owner of multiple properties in the district, said that the property had been vaca nt too long. He would love to see something built there. He commented that parking was available on the west side of Scott Street and that adequate parking is available for the renters. Rhea Roberts, QQA Director, stated that they generally agreed with staff comments but have comments on the height. The QQA is supportive of infill and that Moses Tucker has a good track record. She hoped that something could be worked out on the site. Mary Bray Kelley, owner and resident of 914 Scott is opposed to the application. She stated that her great grandfather had built the houses on the west side of Scott in 1874. The house she lives in has been in her family since that time. Although some houses have been converted to mutli-family, they still convey the same single family sense. Several aspects of the proposal concern her. She does not feel that the building at 50 feet tall and 27 feet long blends with the area. The small setbacks are not similar to the existing. She spoke of the high number of contributing structures in the area and must have a higher standard of compliance with the guidelines. The role of the commission is not just to preserve structures, but the ambiance of the district. She appreciates Moses Tucker but this structure is not suited for this location. John Bush, owner and resident of the Lincoln House at 7th and Cumberland, recognizes the contributions to downtown that Moses Tucker has done. The HDC should support residential uses as the highest and best use. Profitability should not be the highest priority of this project and echoed Ms. Kelley’s comments. He spoke of the process and the recusal of the two members. Vice Chair Russell said that the conflict is nearby property owners. Mr. Bush stated that there was less representation of property owners on the items because of the recusals. Vice Chair Russell stated that they have a direct financial interest if this project goes through. Mr. Bush made a request to reexamine recusals on commissioners. Commissioner Johnson stated that he had insightful comments. Chair Bowen reminded Mr. Tucker that he will need 4 of the 5 remaining commissioners to vote in favor of the item to pass. Mr. Tucker stated that he wanted to defer the item because he did not think he would get four votes today. Chair BJ Bowen stated that the next meeting would be in April and suggested that he work with staff to make modifications to the application. Vice Chair Russell asked what happened if the vote for a deferral did not receive a majority. Mr. Minyard stated that the motion would fail and then you would need to vote on the item. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the item to the April 11, 2016 meeting and Commissioner Pekar seconded. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and 2 absent (Kelley and Carman). Chair Bowen thanked the application for his time and hoped that they could find a solution. Other Matters Preservation Plan Implementation update Mr. Minyard stated that Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell was going to be out of town on the meeting date. He will poll the members and see if they wanted to meet. Enforcement issues Staff said he was working on some to be on an upcoming Commission agenda. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet will be emailed to the Commission. Guidelines Revision Staff is asking all commissioners to send in any specific language changes to Staff by March 31St. Staff will set up a work session after the submittals are made. He spoke of the process after the final text is adopted. Commissioner Page Wilson stated that the tour was not what he wanted. He wanted a tour of the district with materials and the buildings. He stated that it may be too late to do that. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar asked what properties he wanted the Commission to see. Mr. Minyard suggested that he make of list of the properties that he wanted the commission to see. For example, Commissioner Wilson then asked the Commission which building has blue neon on it. He answered it was the Lutheran church. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 7:32 p.m. Attest: Chai Secretary /Staff --7 (t bo I Date Date Page 40 of 40