Loading...
HDC_05 09 2016Page 1 of 32 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, May 9, 2016, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Toni Johnson Page Wilson Rebecca Pekar Dick Kelley Members Absent: Open Position (QQA) City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Robert Airo Mark Itagge George Campbell Frank Barksdale James Sullivan Maureen Howell Mary Bray Kelley Kate East Jonathon Opitz Edward Bradford Karol Zoeller Gabe Holmstrom Charley Penix Rett Tucker Roy DePriest Mark Brown Jamie Moses Jill Judy Adrian Kitchen London Grandison Katherine Matthews Molly Satterfield Gene Levy Becky Tucker Lisa Spann Ann Johnson Brett Kemp Sheridan Browning John Martin Emily Madden Eric Nelson Dan Fowler Mayor Mark Stodola Approval of Minutes A motion was made to approve the minutes of the April 11, 2016 meeting as amended was made by Commissioner Toni Johnson and seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 open position. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Page 2 of 32 DATE: May 9, 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. A. Location of Project Page 3 of 32 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 4 of 32 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 property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 5 of 32 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, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Page 6 of 32 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. There will be awnings over the patio doors clad in Hardiepanel vertical siding with Hardietrim Page 7 of 32 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 residential structures in the area of influence are two story. The two commercial structures are Proposed Brick Proposed shingles Page 8 of 32 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 var y 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. 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. Page 9 of 32 FENCE The fence along the east property line at the alley will be a 6’ wood privacy fence with the slats 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 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 Page 10 of 32 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 RE ACTION: 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 th e 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. 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 Page 11 of 32 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 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 vacant too long. He would love to see something built there. He commented that parking was Page 12 of 32 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. STAFF UPDATE: April 11, 2016 Staff met with the applicant on March 16th to discuss any changes to the drawings before the next HDC meeting. The applicant discussed some preliminary changes and submitted final changes to the Staff before the March 28 deadline. Several changes have been made to the submission since the last review. The changes will be reviewed in the following paragraphs. See letter from AMR dated 3/28/16 on page 20 of this report. Page 13 of 32 West elevation for April 11, 2016 hearing. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The style of the proposed apartments are unchanged. GENERAL DESIGN The apartments front along Scott Street and have been moved back from the Scott Street property line. The building wall is proposed to sit at 11 and 15 feet back from the property line. The porches will extend approximately 5 feet toward the street with the ultimate setback at 6 to 10 feet back. The 3 center apartments facing Scott Street have been removed to create a courtyard roughly in the center of the building. The rear units remain so the number of unites have changed from 53 to 50. This courtyard is approximately 37 feet wide by 29’ deep. This courtyard will reduce the perceived length of the building when travelling up Scott Street from a building that was 277 feet long to two buildings, one 114 feet long and the northern wing at 126 feet long. This reduces the perceived mass of the building when walking or driving along Scott Street. With the deletion of the center units, all eight of the units that are on the ground floor facing Scott Street will have exterior doors with outside access. The raised patios that were in the original submission have now been changed to porches that will sit approximately two feet above grade. Instead of awnings over the doors facing Scott Street, porches are proposed to be built. The porches will be approximately two feet above grade, concrete porch floor with cast in place concrete steps. There will be a metal painted handrail on either side of the steps. There will be a wood framed canopy and columns with hardie clad surfaces and wood picket guardrails around the patio. The swimming pool has been removed from this proposal as well as the fence surrounding it. 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 Same as before. See page 6 of this report. SITING The building has been moved away from the property line along Scott Street with the setback to the front of the porches to be approximately 6 and 10 feet. The setbacks on 9th and 10th streets are approximately 10 feet. The parking lot will have about 57 parking spaces, and increase of 7 spaces. Landscaping in the parking lot has yet to be reviewed against the landscape ordinance. Interior planting beds are required by the landscape ordinance and the final arrangement of those islands have yet to be determined. Page 14 of 32 Any improvements in the public right-of-way, such as trees, lights and sidewalk arrangement are in the public right-of-way and are not reviewed by the Commission. HEIGHT The overall height of the building has been reduced five feet to a maximum height of 44’-5”. The southern part of the block is lower than the north side with the first floor being 36” difference in finished floor level from one end to the other. The floor level was reduced one foot overall. The roof pitch was reduced from 8 ½ in 12 to 6 ½ in 12. This accounts for the additional 4 feet in height reduction. PROPORTION The reduction of the number of units by creating the courtyard reduces the perceived length and mass of the building from Scott Street. RHYTHM The façade materials of the building have been changed. The areas to be bricked versus the areas to have Hardie plank siding have been changed so that the façade resembles nine individual buildings instead of one along Scott Street. The brick will extend from the first floor to the top of the gable as will the Hardie plank siding. This will give the rhythm of a brick structures alternating with wood sided structures. The courtyard area in the perceived center of the building will have a brick corbel detailing without the appearance of a pitched roof. On the east, south and north side of the building, the different color of the siding will break up the mass of the building. ROOF AREA The roof pitch has been reduced to lower the overall height of the building. The pitch was 8 ½ in 12 and is now 6 ½ in 12. ENTRANCE AREA The number of entrances is unchanged. The main entrance in the center of the building along Scott Street will be farther away from Scott Street in a courtyard setting. Multiple historic apartment buildings in the area have a courtyard in the center of the building where the main entrance or entrances to individual apartments are off the courtyard. Some examples are along 6th Street. The entry will now feature a porch with columns and a section of metal fence along the top of the porch roof. This will not be a balcony, only a decorative feature. The 3 foot fence to the courtyard is shown on the plan in the same plane as the building façade. With it being the same height as the fences along the rest of Scott Street, the argument could be made to bring the fence to the property line and increase the area of the courtyard. WALL AREAS See comments above under Rhythm. DETAILING Same as before. See page 7 of this report. FAÇADE See comments above under Rhythm. Otherwise, no changes. SCALE The scale of the building is quite larger than the surrounding buildings but less than some in the district. The Arts Center and the Law School building dwarf this proposed building in scale and mass. A similar building, in mass, would be the apartments on the frontage road between 10th and 11th street, commonly called the Law School Apartments. The removal of the three units in the center of the building on Scott Street reduces the scale of the building when traveling along Scott Street. MASSING The building has been moved farther away from Scott Street. The massing of the Page 15 of 32 building is reduced with the increased setbacks of the façade and the differing treatment of the materials with the brick and siding. The raised patios that used to be on the property line have been removed and now at grade landscaping is in its place. Individual covered porches with columns have been added to the eight units that have doors that front onto Scott Street. A 3 foot tall fence with the same height gates has replaced the raised patio and 42 inch fences on top. The overall height of improvements has gone from a range of 72 – 84 inches (raised patio plus railing) to a 36” metal fence uniformly along Scott Street. This has the effect of reducing the mass of the building. FENCE The fence along the east property line at the alley will be a 6’ wood privacy fence with the slats laid horizontally. The fence along the other three property lines will be an Ameristar Montage Classic welded steel fence. The fence surrounding the parking will be a six foot tall fence while the fence around the building will be a three foot tall fence. It is recommended that all metal fences be installed along the grade instead of being installed stair stepped up the slope. This reduction in the height of the fence along Scott Street is more in keeping with the residences on the other side of the street that have fences. The swimming pool has been removed from this proposal as well as the fence surrounding it. SITE DESIGN The parking lot is shown to be asphalt. The Design guidelines state that parking lots should be concrete or gravel. The garbage compactor enclosure sits on the southeast corner of the lot. The gate will be the same as the other metal fencing on the site with the addition of a solid metal sheet attached to the fencing on the back side to shield views of the equipment. The walls of the enclosure will be plain concrete block with a painted skim coat. Gates for pickup will swing into the right of way for 10th Street. A franchise permit will be needed for this use of the public right-of-way. In summary, the following changes have been made to the application.  The overall height of the building has been reduced,  the center three units have been removed creating a courtyard entry to the building,  the entire building has been shifted to the east away from Scott Street,  the fencing along Scott Street has been reduced to 36”,  porches with columns have been added to the eight units facing Scott’  Changes have been made to the arrangement of siding versus brick areas that emulate individual separate structures Staff believes that the sum of the changes listed above and described in this staff report reduce the height and perceived mass and scale of the building. The new siting of the building along with the changes from raised patios on the property line to lowered porches that sit off the property line also contribute to a reduced sense of mass and scale of the building. 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. Page 16 of 32 COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2016 Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, stated that it had come to the attention of this office today that there had been contact by members of the commission by a recused member of this commission expressing ideas concerning the project. That communication is improper and creates issues. The office could not address the issues on this short time frame and recommended that the Commission defer to the May 2016 meeting in order for the City Attorney’s office to recommend on which way would be best to proceed. A motion was made to defer the 901 Scott Street COA to the May 2016 meeting by Commissioner Toni Johnson based on unresolved legal issues. Commissioner Rebecca Pekar seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Wilson), 1 recusal (Kelley) and 1 absent (Carman). Chair Bowen apologized to the applicants for deferring one additional month but most of the commissioners felt like they should get the legal issue resolved before voting on the item. Mr. Minyard stated to the audience that all emails that were sent in have been given to the commissioners. He continued that the next hearing would be on May 9th. Those here for the 901 Scott street application could leave if they wish or could stay for the other items on the agenda. STAFF UPDATE: May 9, 2016 On May 4, 2016, the applicant submitted new drawings to the Staff. The drawings are shown on pages 27 - 30 of this report. There are four changes to the plan: setbacks, two entry courtyard instead of one, new roof plan with reduced height, and reduced number of apartments. This change to the plan increased the setback from Scott Street four additional feet and increased the depth of the porches an additional three feet. Now, the porches on the individual units will be setback from the Scott Street curb either 22’ or 26 feet. The drawing on page 30 of this report reference the exterior wall of the units instead of the porches and reference the curb of the street instead of the property line where setbacks are actually measured. The additional four feet of setback from Scott Street came out of the depth of the parking lot. The 60’ depth was reduced to 56’ and resulted in four less parking spaces. This latest plan on page 29 of this report shows two entry courts instead of just one as shown on the prior plan. This will help break up the mass along Scott Street. The roof pitch has been reduced from an original 8 ½ in 12 to 6 ½ in 12 and is now proposed to be 1 3/4 in 12 (just under a 2 in 12). This is shown on page 28 of this report. This is similar to the roof at 511 Rock Street which appears to be a flat roof, but is in fact a hip roof. The new proposal shows four foot overhangs, also similar to 511 Rock Street. The front facing gables have been removed from this plan. The new plan will result in a building that ranges from just under 40’ to 36 1/2 feet. This removes 10 feet in height from the original proposal. The apartment count is proposed to be 48 units, down from the original count of 53. They will have 53 parking spaces in the rear parking lot. The fence along Scott Street will be uniformly placed at the property line and be 36” tall. All other details not mentioned in this update are the same at the details listed in the April 11, 2016 update. Page 17 of 32 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were 68 comments (phone, email and visits to the office) regarding this application with some duplicates. Up to the first meeting in March, the comments were about two thirds to request deferral. Between the March and April meetings, the comments were about two thirds in support. After the April meeting they are about half and half in support and against. Comments from adjacent owners that Staff could identify, 7 are against, 1 in support and 1 asked for the application to be modified in an email dated 3/14/2016. 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: May 9, 2016 Debra Weldon of the City Attorney’s office stated that with respect the application for a COA at 901 Scott street, regarding the possible conflict of interest for this commission, would the commissioners state for the record that since the application for COA has been substantially amended since the recused Commissioner made comments to other commissioners, those comments should not have a detrimental effect on the integrity of tonight’s decision making process. The City Attorney recommends that the Commission’s consideration of 901 Scott be able to continue if each voting member can state for the record that their decision on the amended 901 Scott Street application will not be influenced by the recused commissioner’s comments. Ms. Weldon asked the Chair to have each commissioner state for the record before the public hearing is opened on this item. Commissioner Page Wilson: The comments will not influence my vote. Commissioner Dick Kelley: I can’t vote. (Recusal) Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell: The comments will not influence my decision either. Chair BJ Bowen: The comments will not influence my decision on the amended application. Commissioner Toni Johnson: The comments will not influence my decision on the amended application. Commissioner Becky Pekar: The comments will not influence my decision on the amended application. It was noted for the record that Commissioner Kelley was recusing on this item and he left the room at this point in the meeting. Mr. Brian Minyard made a presentation concerning the application. He made note of the changes starting on page 15 and the graphics are on page 27-30. He covered the change in setback, how setbacks are measured, loss of parking spaces, and lowering the roof pitch. He continued that the apartment count is down to 48 and they will be providing 53 spaces. He spoke of the fence heights in the various locations. The various details that have not been changed in the last revision will be the same at the April hearing and are stated in the staff report. The counts on citizen input have been updated. Over 60 comments have been received via phone, email, letters, and visits the office. The support is more than the opposition overall. Of Page 18 of 32 those that could be identified as property owners in the district, there are eight against, two in support and three neutral. Commissioner Pekar noted for the record that she has spoken with Becky Witsell, a property owner in the next block to the south, about the project and that Ms. Witsell was impressed with the effect and likes the two courtyards. She also liked the lower height, increased setbacks, and the colors and now supports the application. Rett Tucker, the applicant, spoke to the Commission. He stated that they had learned a lot in the process and the something isn’t always better than nothing. Their mission in downtown was to make it a vibrant neighborhood for years to come. The deferrals had been constructive and helpful for the community. He stated that they met with anyone and everyone that would meet with them on the project. He thinks now that what they have is better than nothing. He stated that they compromised on the design and are trying to do it right. Frank Barksdale, architect for the project, summarized the eleven factors as listed from the ordinance and how they applied to this project. He provided a 11x17 printout of the PowerPoint to the commissioners. He wanted to add pendant lights on porch and went over the handout. Commissioner Johnson asked about the depth of the porches, Mr. Barksdale said that they were eight feet deep. Commissioner Pekar asked about the detailing of the porches. Mr. Barksdale said that more detail will be incorporated into the design. Mr. Tucker stated that one suggestion was to not make all of the porches look alike. Mr. Minyard added that the earlier drawings that were submitted that had all of the material details, those details travelled forward with this application and were still applicable. Porches were not discussed at that time. Reference the earlier portion of the staff report for types of windows, doors, etc. Discussions were held on the Hardie panel on the north and south facades. The applicant officially amended their application to change this to Hardie plank lap siding, adding the pendant lighting under the porches and having different color brick and siding for the units. They hoped to vary the design of the porches. Mr. Minyard asked if they were formally amending their application for these items. Mr. Tucker said yes. Commissioner Johnson asked if they were going to have traditional styled porches. Mr. Tucker replied yes. Chair Bowen opened the public hearing portion of the item and asked for all speakers to limit their time to three minutes. George Campbell, who lives in Quapaw Tower, spoke of the history of the area and stated t hat the area is experiencing a resurrection that began with the MacPark group. They need to move people back into this area. Younger people want apartments not to own houses. He urges the support of the commission. Gabe Holstrum, of the Downtown Partnership, stated that their executive committee voted to support the project. He asked the commission to vote yes on the item. Page 19 of 32 Charley Penix, who lives in Hillcrest, works downtown, stated that very reputable architects and developers are working on this project. He is in support of the application. Mark Brown, who sold the land to Moses Tucker and lives at 400 W 18th Street, owns property across the street. He hopes that the Commission looks favorably on this item. Gene Levy, who is an architect with Cromwell, does not live in the neighborhood. His great grandfather built homes across the street. He worked with Ed Cromwell on developing houses in the area. The revised drawings and comments have improved the project. He visualized what he would see from his grandfather’s front porch, would this be nice or not? He believes now that it is a nice project and carefully detailed. The massing has been broken up and looks like individual houses, row houses, and is nice visually. Mayor Mark Stodola stated that it is rare that mayors appear before a commission but since the project finishes here instead of the City Board, he will comment here. 41 years ago, he lived at 1013 Scott Street. The neighborhood has improved since then but the lot was a vacant then as it is now. The HDC has been faithful and honorably protecting the district and is complementary of that. The 11 factors are important to mesh infill faithful to the concept and context. Sharon Welch Blair spoke about the project. She owns the Empress Bed and Breakfast and is a member of First Presbyterian Church. She spoke of the 20 year vision for the Church which sits diagonally across from this site. She is appreciative of the Commission. They have looked at the details and done a good job. She is appreciative of Rett and Jimmy’s attitude of working with the Commission and with people. She noted that it is not easy to satisfy everybody. She has one reservation with the overall look of the building. She asked that the porches not be simple or modern, but be compatible. If they changed the porches, they would have her support. Chair Bowen closed the public comment section of the hearing. Commissioner Johnson said she was appreciative to be able to take time to look at project and thinks it was a compromise. She was glad to see the changes in the lower height, adding porches, deepening the setback, and taking materials from the ground to the roof. She thinks they have support from the community. Vice Chair Russell referenced section V B in the guidelines for infill. With respect to orientatio n, it generally addresses setbacks and adds green space. In respect to scale and massing, because it occupies all six lots, it will be one of the largest developments in the district. The staggered setbacks and massing on Scott imply five individual buildings but on 9th and 10th Streets, the massing fails. He would prefer the stair tower set back to read as two individual masses. On building form, the project is great. On materials, he had no major comment. Because the project is so close to the architecturally important structures, he thinks that other items must be addressed. The height is in range, only because the roof is 30 inches tall. It is still too overpowering for the street. The detailing of the porches is still an issue. He wants to see thought and detail on porches before voting. Mr. Minyard, Staff, told the commission that in the past, if it was a choice between one individual door, one light fixture, etc. the Commission gave Staff the authority to work with the applicant after the vote was taken. Other times, it was a larger portion, and the Commission asked that Page 20 of 32 the applicant come back with more drawings. Mr. Tucker will commit that the porches will not be contemporary and will work with Staff on this matter. Vice Chair Russell does not believe that something can be described verbally, the porches need study and presentation given the scale of the project. Commissioner Johnson stated that she agreed with Vice Chair Russell on the setback comment on 9th and 10th Street but would not vote against the whole project just because of that. On the porches, she would think it would be good enough to vote on it with them being deferred twice and them working with Staff. Mr. Minyard summarized the amendments that had been made to the application: HardiePlank to replace the Hardie panel portions, adding pendant lights on the porches, varying the color of the brick and siding, and traditional style porches. There was a discussion on if the setback could be increased on the stair tower. Frank Barksdale stated that they cannot commit to change the north and south end and do not want to promise something that may not be able to be done. Mr. James Sullivan, architect on the project, stated that they will set the stairs back as much as possible, but it may not be eight feet. When questioned, he also stated that the closets in the hall are rental for the units for extra storage. The applicant amended the application to move the stairwells on the north and south wall back a minimum of two feet and possible more. It was noted that the trash dumpster door do not swing into the right of way. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the application with the following conditions: HardiePlank to replace the Hardie panel portions, adding pendant lights on the porches, varying the color of the brick and siding, insetting the north and south stairwell a minimum of two feet, and traditional style porches and all staff recommendations. Commissioner Becky Pekar seconded. A roll call vote was requested by the Chair and the motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 recusal (Kelley) and 1 vacant position (QQA). The item passes. Chair Bowen thanked the applicant for working with the Commission and the community and hope that they continue the good work. He thanked them for their patience and thanked all who came. Page 21 of 32 DATE: May 9, 2016 APPLICANT: Robert Airo, First Lutheran Church ADDRESS: 700 Rock Street COA REQUEST: Roof Replacement The applicant on March 30, 2016 informed Staff via email that the abstract list would not be available for them in time to provide adequate notice to property owners in the area. Staff is recommending deferral to the May 9, 2016 meeting for failure to notify. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral. COMMISSION ACTION: April 11, 2016 Staff informed the audience that the notices had not been met on this item and recommended deferral for one month to the May 2016 meeting. A motion to defer to the May 2016 meeting was made by and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Carman). STAFF UPDATE: May 9, 2016 PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 700 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Part of Lots 10-12, Block 42, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This building was built ca 1881. The 2006 survey form states: “An Italianate structure with decorative porches and cast stone widow & horizontal banding trim.” It also states “Italianate residence hat has been renovated for office use.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Roof Replacement. The request is to replace the original 132 year old slate roof with an asphalt 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. B. Location of Project Page 22 of 32 PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On December 6, 1990, a COA was denied for signage for the house. On April 5, 1984, a COA was approved and issued to first Lutheran Church for restoration of the house and combined parking lot design. East (Rock Street) elevation from 2006 Survey North (7th Street) elevation from 2006 Survey View form south east via Google street view Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The rehab guidelines state on page 50 under Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation: 6. Roofs: Roofs should be preserved in their original size, shape, and pitch, with original features (cresting, chimneys, finials, cupolas, etc.) and, if possible, with original roofing material (slate, tile, metal.) Composition shingles may be used if the original material is not economically feasible. Dark colors are best for historic buildings. Dormers should not be introduced on primary façades but may be added to side and rear facades if appropriate with the character and scale of the structure. Balconies, skylights, or decks should not be added to a roof where visible from the street. Roof pitch is expressed as a ratio of the vertical rise to its horizontal run. A 6:12 pitch Page 23 of 32 rises 6’ for every 12’ of horizontal run. Staff has requested a letter of clarification from AHPP on this matter. The letter asked the flowing questions: Is the asphalt roof appropriate for this property? Is this an appropriate roof for a building with an economic hardship? Have they applied for a HPRG grant, and if so, when will it be announced? Would this roof disqualify them from getting a grant? That letter is attached on pages 7 & 8 of this staff report. The applicant has gathered bids from various contractors upon Staff’s advice. The first quote attached on page 9 is from Harness Roofing. The quote is for $167,785 for replacement of the slate roof and installing a white TPO roof on the flat portion of the roof. This bid may not cover the porch(es) on Rock Street. There is a contingency for replacing rotted decking boards. The second quote attached on page 10 is also from Harness Roofing. This quote is for $71,740.00 for replacing the slate with 50 year CertainTeed Highland Slate in Venetian Red asphalt shingles. This also includes the white TPO roof on the flat portion of the roof. This bid may not cover the porch(es) on Rock Street. There is a contingency for replacing rotted decking boards. The third quote attached on page 11 is from All Spec Roof. This quote is for $23,650.00 for replacing the slate with 50 year CertainTeed Highland Slate in Venetian Red asphalt shingles. This also includes the TPO roof on the flat portion of the roof. This bid may not cover the porch(es) on Rock Street. There is a contingency for replacing rotted decking boards. Replacing slate roofs can be expensive. The bid from Harness for slate, including the $20,000 contingency would be $187,785. With an expected life expectancy of 100 years on a slate roof, that would be prorated to $1,878 per year. With the 50 year CertainTeed shingles, including the $20,000 contingency that would be $91,740 or prorated to $1,835 per year. The last bid form All Spec Roof would be $43,650 including the $20,000 contingency that would be $91,740 or prorated to $873 per year. But consider that the All Spec bid is roughly one third of the other bid before contingencies. This is to say, that on a prorated basis, the cost of a slate roof may not be as expensive as one would think. They have applied for a Historic Preservation Restoration Grant HPRG grant from AHPP to help cover part of the reroofing. This grant requires a cash match. Every $2 provided by the AHPP must be matched by the grantee with $1 in cash. The Attorney General has stated that non- CertainTeed Highland Slate in Venetian Red asphalt shingles Page 24 of 32 profits are eligible to take advantage of the state income tax credits for historic preservation which could cover 25% of the rehab costs of the roof minus fees. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval. 4. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: May 9, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. He summarized the email from Dale Pekar and the letter from AHPP. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if the original slate roof is red. Mr. Minyard said that the applicant could verify that. Robert Airo, representing the Church stated that the church is a non-profit and that the church membership is declining as well as revenues. They do not have the money to put back the slate. The plaster has been damaged on the second floor of the building because of the leaks which has resulted in an unusable second floor. They cannot repair the second floor without fixing the roof first. They would like to rent the second floor as professional office space. He continued that the roof does have red tint to it but it is mostly gray. The church council wants to use the Highland shingles and want to use the New England Slate color. They are trying to match what was there. Commissioner Johnson asked about the quote on the slate if it was for all new slate or salvaging some of it. Mr. Airo stated the believed it was all new slate, not using the original. If you get grant, how much would you be paying for the slate roof. Mr. Airo responded $91,000. The grant should cover $60,000 which we would pay $30,000 for the architectural shingle and $100,000 for slate. Vice Chair Russell stated if they did replace the slate, to ask them to salvage as much of the slate as possible. $187,000 quote minus the $60,000 grant minus the state income tax credit would of $46,000 which brings total under $80,000. Since you are an income producing, the Federal income tax credit of 20% would knock $36,000 off the cost of the true slate. Commissioner Johnson stated that you cannot sell the Federal tax credits. Vice Chair Russell said that they could sell credits. There was a discussion between Commissioner Johnson and him if they could qualify for federal tax credits. Vice Chair Russell said that numbers were close and that this was one of the few if not the only slate roof in the district. Architectural detailing is important in the district. Chair BJ Bowen referred to the Dale Pekar email. The Ridge vent should be continuous, all the way to the end of the eaves. He asked Mr. Airo is there was a problem with that. He said that he did not. Commissioner Johnson said that the first choice would be slate, but she underst ands economic hardship. She spoke of the support of AHPP of not losing the Contributing status if the slate Page 25 of 32 roof was removed. She believes that they can get state income tax credits. She encouraged them to look at state tax credits for either roof, don’t leave money on table. She would prefer slate. Mr. Minyard stated that if they wanted slate, it would be staff approval. He continued in supposition, that if they got approval for the asphalt roof and then wanted to do slate, it would then be staff approval for them to install the slate. Commissioner Page Wilson asked if he had water damage inside. Mr. Airo stated that they had plaster problems. Commissioner Wilson asked what the timeline was on the grant. It was stated that it was later this summer. Commissioner Johnson stated that it generally took 30 days for state to review state income tax. Commissioner Wilson stated he had a preference for slate, water on inside and the roof is important. Mr. Airo stated that there had been multiple repairs on the roofing in the past. Katherine Matthews, who owns property at Cumberland and 7th, spoke in favor of the application. The church does not have the money. Jill Judy, who owns multiple properties in the district, clarifies the tax credits. She stated that generally she gets 20% instead of 25% after she pays fees and cashes it out. The church must have the money to come up with first before they get the tax credits on the back end. That means more fundraising more grants. She recognizes the inherent difficulties on replacing slate. He closed the public comment section of the hearing. Vice Chair Russell commented on the economic hardship Section A “original material should be retained”. He read from the guidelines and stated that retaining original materials was the task that the Commission to do. Commissioner Becky Pekar made a motion to approve the application using CertainTeed Highland asphalt shingle with slate look. Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and 1 open position (QQA). Page 26 of 32 DATE: May 9, 2016 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy ADDRESS: 113 E 9th Street COA REQUEST: Demolition of Structure PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 113 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “West 40’ of Lots 11 and 12 except the East 11.5’ of the south 31’ Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Cohn House was built in 1889 as a single family house. (There is an addition Cohn House at 904 Scott built in 1871.) The 2006 survey form states: “c. 1895 residence with major alterations.” Also noted is “first floor façade/ porch addition; rear concrete block addition.” It is considered a “Non-Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for demolition of the structure. 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. One. Location of Project Page 27 of 32 Google Street view of north and west elevation Google Street view of east elevation Photo from 1988 Survey Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: On page 65 of the Guidelines it states under the “Guidelines of Relocation and Demolition”: Preserving and restoring buildings on their original sites should be a priority for all significant structures, which contribute to the overall character of an historic district. However, if the use of the land, on which the building is situated, must significantly change and therefore requires removal of an historic structure, relocating the building within the district is an acceptable alternative to demolition. Many historic districts encourage vacant lots to be filled with historic structures, which need to be moved from their original sites. This may be appropriate if the building is compatible with the district’s architectural character in regards to style, Page 28 of 32 period, height, scale, materials, and the setting and placement on the new lot. The new foundation walls should be compatible with the architectural style of the building and the surrounding buildings. The Little Rock Office of Planning can advise anyone contemplating relocating a building of the applicable regulations and permits. Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or architectural integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a “contributing” historic building diminishes the overall character of the district and could jeopardize the National Register Historic District status. Demolition by neglect occurs when routine maintenance procedures are not followed, allowing damage from weather, water, insects or animals. Proper routine maintenance and/or rehabilitation are strongly recommended. Care should be taken when reviewing for an application for demolition of a structure that was not 50 years old at the time of the survey, but are now or close to 50 years old at the time of application. If the district was resurveyed, these buildings may be contributing, but may not be contributing. These applications should be taken on a case by case basis and carefully examine the architecture of the individual building as well as their context within the district. Under certain conditions, however, demolition permits may be granted by the Historic District Commission: 1. The public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building, as determined by the building or code inspector and concurring reports commissioned by and acceptable to the LRHDC from a structural engineer, architect, or other person expert in historic preservation. 2. Rehabilitation or relocation is impossible due to severe structural instability or irreparable deterioration of a building. 3. Extreme hardship has been demonstrated, proven, and accepted by the LRHDC. Economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the property, not to the financial status of the property owner. 4. The building has lost its original architectural integrity and no longer contributes to the district. 5. No other reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the building. In principal, it is undesirable to demolish buildings in the Historic District partly because that part of the urban fabric is removed. A house removed in a blockface of six houses results in a gap tooth appearance. Corner buildings are important. The applicant has provided two pieces of documentation concerning the condition of the structure. The first is from Curry’s Pest control that states that there is active t ermite activity occurring in two locations of the building noted by (A) on the plan. There are also notes of water rot to subfloor and joists around plumbing lines. Termite activity is also noted in those areas of rotted joists and subfloors. There is old termite damage to the plate and sill on the west wall. On the cover letter, it states that these areas will require extensive repairs. The second letter is from Matt Foster, MWF Construction. It states that the foundation has not been repaired or maintained over the lifetime of the house and that the joist and support beams Page 29 of 32 would need to be replaced. He also notes termite damage. He continues that if the house were to be leveled, extensive plaster repair would be needed. Another point is that the brick veneer is damaged and missing in some spots. The roof has allowed for water intrusion and compromising the floor on the second level. Staff inspected the interior and exterior of the structure on March 31, 2016. The house was separated into three apartments, one upper and two lower. The one story portion of the house in the rear is a separate apartment. The stairwell has been walled in and the banister has been removed or is hidden. There is little historic door trim and window trim left in t he structure. The floors are very uneven, but there are no gaping holes. The brick on the house had been sandblasted in the past by a previous owner, Mary Buchannan. She told Staff that after she sandblasted it, the brick fell off of the bay on the ea st of the house. She subsequently painted the rest of the brick in an effort to waterproof it. The porch on the front of the house was renovated by Yandell Johnson, a modernist architect that practiced locally. This is shown in the 1939-1950 Sanborn map. No historic photos of the house, prior to the Johnson remodeling, are known to exist. The house may not be salvageable due to the termite and water damage and lack of preventative maintenance over the years. If the building is demolished, care should be taken to remove all construction debris and maintain a clean site afterwards. Removal of any architectural fragments for reuse would be positive. Details of Sanborn Maps: 1892 Sanborn Map 1939 Sanborn Map 1939-1950 Sanborn Map The Sanborn maps above show the changes to the area. In 1892, there was another house at 111 E. 9th to the west of the project site that also faced north. There are two one story sheds in the rear of the property. By 1939, the sheds had been replaced by the concrete structure that is there now for automobile storage and stalls. The house at 111 E 9th had been removed. Staff has been told that the house at 900 Scott had been moved south sometime between 1892 and 1939 to 904 Scott and was turned into a clinic. A new building (rooming house) was built on the corner. By the 1939-1950 map, the house at 113 E 9th had been altered on the front and an addition on the southwest corner of the house had been completed. Since the last map, the structure at 900 Scott has been removed, the house at 908 burned last year, the shed at 908 was removed, and the roof at the concrete garage stalls on the site had been removed. Page 30 of 32 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 5. Obtaining a demolition permit. COMMISSION ACTION: May 9, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Vice-Chair Jeremiah Russell made a request that Staff check the minutes for the date of construction for this structure. Mark Brown and Jill Judy were present as applicants. Ms. Judy spoke that they bought the building six months ago and that it had been vacant for a while. She noted that they had saved a lot of buildings in the area. She spoke of issues with dumpster placement and parking. She talked about the configuration of the lots and that the demolition of this building would not change the percentage of contributing and non-contributing nor would it change the fabric of the neighborhood. Without historic photos, there is no way to make it contributing. She continued to speak of the faults in the foundation and that the brick veneer would have to be replaced. She stated that the brick may not be original to the structure. Mark Brown stated that the brick has settled around the windows and that the new bricks would not make it historic. Vice Chair Russell asked if they were demolishing the structure for access. What was the intent of the demolition? He continued to ask if they intended to build anything. The applicant clarified that they did not intend to erect a building on this property. He mentioned that 908 was vacant now and with the empty lot on the corner, it would be ideal to have houses in those spots. Ms. Judy stated that there is only five feet of access on the side of the house at 113 E 9th. Commissioner Page Wilson asked if the reason to tear it down was for trash dumpster and parking. Mr. Brown replied that it was an eyesore and that it was not worth rebuilding. The demolition was part of the overall revitalization. Ms. Judy stated that there was no access to the either back yard for parking. She stated that there was no on-street parking or back yard parking. Commissioner Wilson stated that this neighborhood was not car-centric. To that, Ms. Judy asked if he would build something with no parking. Commissioner Wilson replied that they can park in the street. Mr. Brown commented that the building used to be a slum building. They received a total of $1500.00 per month in rents as is. When asked, he replied that there was nothing in this building. Vice Chair Russell agreed that it was an eyesore, but stated that neighborhood revitalization is not an empty lot. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that demolitions are the most serious COAs that the Commission hears. She noted the letter from Matt Foster and the defects of the building. She asked if they would consider deferring to get a letter from a preservation professional, AHPP, an engineer, etc. to help clarify the issue. Ms. Judy stated that they owned three buildings on this block and did not want a slum property there. She stated that it was economically unfeasible to rehab the structure. Page 31 of 32 Commissioner Wilson said that preservation is the number one duty of the Commission. He wants to be responsible and follow the process. He would be amenable to the deferral. He asked who had the qualifications other than the city to make the judgement on if it cannot be rehabbed. Commissioner Johnson suggested that they ask Bryan Driscoll of AHPP to visit the property. She commented that it would be an easier vote if there was someone in the preservation field to say that demolition was appropriate. A third party opinion would be a stronger case. It was discussed and agreed that this deferral was at the request of the Commission. The applicant asked for the July meeting. The deferral was requested for two months till the July meeting for the purpose of gathering some information from an independent source. A motion was made to defer to the July 2016 hearing by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Vice Chair Russell. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position (QQA) and 1 recusal (Kelley). Other Matters Preservation Plan Implementation update Mr. Minyard stated that they had a productive meeting last month and will be having another meeting this month. They will be talking the ReLocal project and might be able to discuss grants which included additional survey area. The location will be at the Sister Cities Conference room in City Hall. Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was emailed to the Commission earlier. The spreadsheet also has the COAs, so the commissioners see both. Guidelines Revision A meeting has been scheduled for couple of weeks from now. Commissioner Page Wilson wants to add neon and solar panels to the Guideline discussion. Mr. Minyard stated that it started with Infill and then spread to Site Design because it was contained in the consultants work. Typos and updates are throughout the document. He stated that there was no problem adding it to the list, but it would be covered at the end. 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 7:11 p.m. Attest: Secretary/Staff `1 1 (c Zc�c Date -7-1( Date Page 32 of 32