HDC_09 12 2016
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, September 12, 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
Dick Kelley
Members Absent: Ted Holder
Open Position (Property Owner)
Open Position (Property Owner Resident)
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: William Page Wilson
Greg Roberts
Stephanie Roberts
Rhea Roberts
Joe Stanley
Lindsey Moore Boerner
Approval of Minutes
A motion was made to approve the minutes of the August 8, 2016 meeting as revised was made
by Commissioner Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Toni Johnston. The motion
passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent and 2 open positions.
Brian Minyard made a note for all the applicants that with only 4 commissioners present, that
they must receive all four votes to approve an application. If they would like to defer their
application, they must do so before their item starts.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a note that all items have completed their notices.
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 44
DATE: September 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Stephanie Roberts
ADDRESS: 1014 Rock
COA REQUEST: Roof modifications on main house and on garage building, replace front
doors, replace porch posts, addition of shutters and iron fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1014 Rock. The property’
legal description is “Lot 9, Block 45, Original City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This structure was built c 1880. The 2006 survey form
states: “1880’s residence with enclosed porch continuing
use a single family residence.” It also states that the
screening has been removed on the porch and that it is a
“Simple Queen Anne style structure of cross gable subset.
Two additions have been made to the rear of the structure.”
It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur
Park Historic District.
The application is for roof modifications on main house and
on garage building, replacing front doors, replacing porch
posts, addition of shutters and iron fence.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On April 22, 1999, an administrative approval was granted
to replace the roof to Stephanie and Greg Roberts.
On March 18, 1997, COA was approved to install a picket
fence to Stephanie and Greg Roberts.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE
APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
The proposed changes to the house will be described in the
following order: Roof modifications on main house and on
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
Contributing / Non-contributing map
Page 3 of 44
garage building, replace front doors, replace porch posts, addition of shutters and iron fence.
In Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, on page 50, the Guidelines state:
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 rises 6’ for every 12’ of
horizontal run.
The main house has had roofing problems for some time due to poorly planned additions to the
house. This has resulted in a valley over a portion of the rear of the house that is prone to
leaking and has caused both interior and exterior water damage to the house. Currently, the
house has two gabled wings that extend to the rear of the house that join. A newer addition has
been added to the rear that mimics the dual gables and exacerbates the problem.
The sanborn maps below are for reference of how the house and site has changed over the
years.
Front of house photo from 2006 Survey Photo from the 1978 Survey
2016 photo of rear of house Rear of house photo from 2006 Survey
Page 4 of 44
The owners’ proposal is to keep the outside pitch of the older additions (12/12) and to extend
them skyward to the center of the house until they meet. This will remove a portion of the
problem. However, this will affect the front
elevation of the house by introducing the top
of the gable end which will be almost five feet
above the ridge line of the house. They are
proposing to put siding in the small gable end
and match the soffit and fascia details of the
original house. On the newest addition to the
house, the shorter section with one bay
window, these side walls will be raised to
match the older walls and the roof will be
raised to match the proposed roof adjacent to
the front of the house. There are also four
dormers proposed to be added on the side
elevations of the house. In elevational view,
the ridgeline of the dormers are visible over
the ridgeline of the original house. However,
when standing on the street, the dormers will
1897 Sanborn map 1913 Sanborn map
1939 Sanborn map 1939-1950 Sanborn map
Proposed north elevation Proposed south elevation
Proposed front elevation
Page 5 of 44
probably not be visible. The dormers would be visible from the street when viewing the house
from an angle. Currently, the house does not have any dormers.
Aerial view of roof Existing roof plan Proposed roof plan
The roof modifications would change the rear façade of the house making it substantially higher.
The proposal is to remove the existing door and windows and replace with two set s of patio
doors. A double window would be added to the second floor and an attic vent.
This roof modification would solve the water issue but the house would lose some of the visual
history of the multiple additions to the rear.
The outbuildings in the rear yard has changed over the years. On the first Sanborn map, there
were three outbuildings in the rear yard. In 1913, it was shown to extend the full property width.
In 1939, the notion of an “A” noted it as automobile storage. Later, a garage was only on the
north side of the lot. See Sanborn maps above. Sometime after 1950, the current garage was
constructed which is closer in scale and location to the 1913 outbuilding.
The proposal from the owner is to remove the low pitched roof (approximately 4/12) and to
replace it with a 12/12 roof which would add storage space over the garage. A stair would be
placed on the north side of the structure for entry. Dormers would be added to the roof facing
the house. This would make this garage a one and one-half story structure. In the area of
2016 photo of garage Proposed garage
Page 6 of 44
influence, there are two one story garages, and one two story in addition to the subject property.
The two story garage carriage house at 1001 Cumberland was approved a received a COA in
1999. Overall in the district, there are 18 garages placed along the alley and eight other garages
in rear yards. 4 of the total of 26 are two story or 15% of the total. When referencing the scaled
drawings that were presented to the Commission, the garage is noticeably wider that the house.
The scale and massing of a two story equivalent of a three car garage is too large.
This garage is not visible from the street, however with the proposed changes, it would be. The
garage has a significant enough roof pitch to shed water as it exists today.
In Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, on page 44, the Guidelines state:
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.
The proposal is to replace both front doors with a matching
pair. The door selected is a JELD-WEN Steel Glass panel
exterior door with ¾ window on the top and two panels
below. Currently, there are mismatched doors, one 15 lite
French door and one with half glass on the top which are not
historic on the house. This ratio of glass and solid on the
proposed door is appropriate for this Folk Victorian house.
In Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, on page
47, the Guidelines state:
Porch details and steps: Porch details should be
retained intact, with repair or replacement of missing
parts (columns, posts, railings, balusters, decorative
molding and trimwork) to match the original in design,
materials, scale, and placement. Porch columns and rails
should not be replaced with decorative iron work Porch
floors should have wood tongue and groove flooring
running perpendicular to the façade, unless the original
floor was concrete. Porches may be screened if the
structural framework for the screen panels is minimal and
the open appearance of the porch is maintained. Ceiling
fans should be mounted high enough to minimize view
from the street. Porch steps, which are original to a
property, should be retained and maintained. Brick and concrete steps are rarely
original.
Stair railings: Stair railings may be required to meet city building codes. If historical
evidence of style and placement exists, duplicate the original hand rails. Many times,
however, none existed or wooden rails deteriorated and were removed early in the
history of the building. If no historical evidence exists, railings may be constructed of
simple metal pipe or flat bars and painted to match the trim color. In essence, the least
obtrusive yet functional option may be used.
Proposed door
Page 7 of 44
The front porch was screened in at one time and the 4x4 post
that currently support the posts were part of that modification.
The 1978 survey shows it screened in, but he 2006 survey
does not. When the porch was screened it, it made sense
where the posts were located. Now, the porch is no longer
screened and the owner wishes to replace the 4x4s with more
appropriate posts. The proposed posts are from Century
Porch Posts, “Urban” model and are made of wood. All of the
company’s posts are made from wood and they offer a variety
of widths. The house across the street is also a Folk Victorian
and the posts requested are similar to theirs. It features a post
split vertically on the ends of the porch. Staff believes that the
posts proposed are an appropriate style for this house. Width
of post should be similar to the posts across the street and the
number of posts can be reduced. Staff recommends adding
the vertically split post on the ends of the porch to mimic
house across the street.
In Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, on page 45,
the Guidelines state:
Shutters: Shutters should be retained, if original to the
building. They should be of louvered wood and should fill
the window opening, if closed. Shutters should not be
added if no historic evidence exists. Shutters that are too
large, too small or of the wrong design are not
recommended.
The proposal is to add shutters to the front of the house. There is evidence that there were
shutter hinges on the front windows at one time. The proposed shutters are from Timberline
Exterior Shutters in a faux louvered shutter. The shutter is milled from a solid sheet of
composite material. They are 1 ¼ inches thick and are available in ½ inch increments from 12 -
24 inches wide and from 30-96 inches tall. Shutters should be purchased to cover the entirety
of the window opening and should be mounted with the appropriate hinges or at least in the spot
where they would be if hinges were there. Staff believes that the design of the shutters is
appropriate.
In Section VI Design Guidelines for Site Design, on page 58, the Guidelines state:
3. Fences and Retaining Walls:
Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36”
Rear yard fencing—72”
Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50
years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical
or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden
fence. Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building.
Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and
maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic.
Proposed post
Proposed
Shutter
Page 8 of 44
Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines.
Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood fences,
pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than three
inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the building. For
larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the scale of the building
and grounds. Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street
frontage may be 72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of
the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure.
Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade
or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link fences may be
located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated
dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended.
Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial
or physical evidence. Freestanding walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate.
New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that
are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the materials of
the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls
should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the
neighborhood.
The proposal is to add a metal fence to the front of the
property. The owner is concerned that if a wood picket
fence was installed with the two adjacent neighbors on
each side having a picket fence that a “compound”
appearance would evolve. The 2006 survey shows a
picket fence at the property. The fence was approved in
1997, but Staff does not know when it was removed.
Picket fences come in a variety of styles that would fit the
guidelines. The width and spacing of the pickets and the
design on the top of the picket give variation to the
streetscape. A fence could be designed and built that
were not like the two neighboring fences.
The metal fence that is shown in the application is quite
ornate for a Folk Victorian house. This house was more of
a ‘blue collar’ type house, not a high style mansion. The
proposed fence is not appropriate style-wise with this
house. If a metal fence was desired, a much more simple
fence with two cross rails instead of three and very simple
finials would be more appropriate.
In summary, the roof on the main house is obviously a problem. The proposed changes could
be appropriate. Staff is concerned about the visibility of the dormers and the proposed ridge of
the rear roof being visible from the front of the house.
Proposed Fence
Page 9 of 44
Staff does not believe that the changes to the roof of the garage are appropriate to the area of
influence. The majority of the outbuildings in that area, as well as the district, is one-story and if
built, the garage would be much more visible than it is now.
Staff believes that the proposed front doors are an appropriate choice for the structure.
Staff believes that the replacement front porch posts are appropriate to the house and that a
split vertical post should be installed on each end of the porch and that the overall number of
posts could be reduced since there is no longer screening on the porch.
Staff believes that the shutter design is appropriate, although the material may not be. Shutters
should be installed with historic hinges or where the shutters would be if hinges were present.
Staff does not believe that the proposed metal fence is appropriate for this property. A simpler
metal fence or a wood picket fence that could be different than the neighbors would be
appropriate.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the changes to the garage building and fencing,
Approval with the following conditions on the remainder of the items:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 11, 2016
Commissioner Becky Pekar recused from this item and left the meeting.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item and the staff recommendations on
each item. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if the changes would make it non-contributing.
She particularly asked about the changes in the roof and since additions can make a property
non-contributing, that is a red flag for her. She also noted the scale of the garage and asked if
the footprint changed.
Stephanie Roberts, the owner, stated that they had been having trouble with the room for some
time. They had replaced the roof only to have the damage come back. They builder suggested
the change in the roof and they are willing to accept guidance from the commission. She stated
that they had asked for the dormers to use the attic for future space. Ms. Roberts said they
wanted the roof of the garage to match the house and they were open to modifying or adjusting
to keep with the neighborhood.
Commissioner Johnson asked if they wanted a two story house. Ms. Roberts said to fix the roof
was the main objective and that a byproduct was to gain the extra space. They considered a
shed dormer originally and thought the two dormers would be attractive. They would benefit the
attic space.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked if they were hung up on the 12/12 pitch on the rear of the
house. Ms. Roberts said they were trying to match the older portion of the house.
Commissioner Kelley asked if they had discussed lowering the pitch so that the ridge of the new
roof would be at the same height of the ridge of the front of the house. Ms. Roberts said that
Page 10 of 44
they could consider that. Mr. Gary Roberts said they would work with the architect to lower the
pitch.
Commissioner Johnson suggested a deferral to make sure that AHPP thought that the addition
would not make the house non-contributing. Ms. Roberts said that she would get input from
them.
Commissioner BJ Bowen suggested that they work with staff to design or pick a fence that
would be more appropriate for the house. Ms. Roberts said that she would look at other metal
fences.
Vice Chair Russell stated the following: 1) you would never see dormers on this style of house.
2) All of the dormers would be visible. 3) The attic space will be high enough to use a second
story without the dormers. 4) The portion of the gable visible from the front is appropriate for a
spindle style home. He is not as bothered by the height. Ms. Roberts responded that she got
the message that dormers are bad.
On the garage, Vice Chair Russell suggested lowering the pitch of the roof. Mr. Roberts said
that an 8/12 would provide storage. Vice Chair Russell said that the proportion of walls and roof
was backwards on the garage, you want taller walls and less roof.
Chair BJ Bowen stated that they needed a simple fence and that it would be less maintenance
than a wood fence. He agrees with Staff on the front doors.
Ms. Roberts asked about the shutters. Vice Chair Russell said that they should choose a
functional shutter and make them out of real wood. He said that they likely had shutters on the
house and it would be keeping with the integrity of the house. He continued that the posts are
appropriate.
Ms. Roberts stated that she would like to accept the offer of the commission to defer her
application.
Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer the item to the August 8th agenda for the purpose of
additional information and updated drawings. Commissioner Toni Johnson seconded the
motion passed 4 ayes, 1 recusal and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: August 8, 2016
Staff requested AHPP look at the proposed drawing as submitted originally along with the staff
report for all of the proposed changes. Staff asked if the proposed chan ges would make the
house non-contributing. The response from Ralph Wilcox of AHPP was: “We would prefer for
the proposed design to not include the dormers and to also lower the roof height on the back
section. However, the ultimate decision does lie with the HDC.”
The applicant has submitted new drawings for the house and garage. In an email dated
7/22/16, Ms. Roberts stated that they removed the dormers on both buildings and lowered the
pitch on the garage roof to an 8/12. The pitch on the main hose roof remains the same as
originally proposed. She stated that they will order the working shutters in wood and use
original styled hardware to mount them. She did not provide any drawings or specifications on
the metal fence.
Page 11 of 44
On the main house, Staff believes that the removal of the dormers will lessen the mass and bulk
of the rear additions to the house. It would still be better if the pitch of the roof in the back was
adjusted so that the ridge of the new roof would be at the same height as the origin al ridge of
the house. This would make the addition not be visible from the front of the house.
Staff believes that the 8/12 pitch roof on the garage is more appropriate. This will lessen the
scale and not overpower the site.
Staff believes that operable wooden shutters are appropriate to the house with the design as
shown above. These would need to be attached with working historically accurate hinges.
With no further information to review on the fence, Staff recommends denial.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the fencing and approval with the following conditions
on the remainder of the items:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: August 8, 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, noted that Commissioner Becky Pekar was recusing herself from the item
and left the room. He then made a presentation of the item with all changes made from the last
hearing. Vice Chair, Jeremiah Russell clarified that the recommendation was for the new pitch
being visible over the top of the front of the house.
Stephanie Roberts, the applicant, did review the options of the roof. She prefers the original
pitch of the roof but brought both ideas to share. She added that she was not able to find a
metal fence and would like to take that off of her applicat ion. She stated that she had lowered
the pitch of the garage.
Commissioner Toni Johnson wanted to discuss the roof pitches. She thinks the new plan is
better but would not want to support something that would make it non-contributing. Vice Chair
Russell asked Commissioner Johnson how a gambrel roof was appropriate for a Victorian
home. She stated that it was unusual, but it did allow leaving more of the older fabric in place.
The conversation continued between the two discussing if the addition in the back becomes
larger than the front, if it should be visible, the character of the home when viewed from the front
and what would be seen from the street to the side.
Commissioner Dick Kelley stated that he was against the gable showing over the top of the
house because the house never had it to start with. He would support a roof that did not show
from the front of the house that would be of a lower pitch. Ms. Roberts said that she did not
believe that she could agree to that without her architects input. Commissioner Kelley asked if
she had to have the 12/12 pitch.
Vice Chair Russell stated that the house is a gable front end and front with two sets of double
gables. The addition that they have proposed is appropriate to the house where some of the
additions currently on the house are not.
Commissioner Toni Johnson worries about when the house will be resurveyed and if it will still
be contributing. There was a discussion on that the emails said and what they did not say. She
said that she thought that AHPP was suggesting not having the gable on top of the house that
was visible from the front of the house.
Page 12 of 44
Commissioner Ted Holder said that what was behind the house was not correct and were bad
additions. What is important was what is seen from the street. It was obvious to him that the
posts were part of the screened porch. If what is behind the house now is not appropriate, what
is the difference in replacing it with something else that is not appropriate? This would prohibit
the new roof poking out over the top of the house. He believes that there is more leeway with
things that are not visible from the street.
Ms. Roberts has looked at a lot of houses and this matches a lot for them. We want something
that is right, but unsure what the middle ground is.
There were no citizen comments.
Ms. Roberts amended her application to remove the fencing portion from her application. Mr.
Greg Roberts stated that he would like to get resolution on the issue.
Mr. Minyard asked Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, to explain the procedures for
expunging votes and she did.
Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the item as amended (with the gable visible over
the roof visible from the front) and Commissioner Johnson seconded. The motion failed with a
vote of 2 ayes (Russell and Bowen), 3 noes (Holder, Kelley and Johnson), 1 recusal (Pekar)
and one open position. A motion was made to expunge the item and that passed with a vote of
5 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and one open position.
Ms. Roberts stated that she wanted to defer to the next hearing and a motion was made to defer
to the September 12, 2016 meeting and that vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Russell)
and one open position.
STAFF UPDATE: September 12, 2016
The applicant has amended her application by formally submitting the gambrel roof for the
renovation area. While the gambrel roof is not a style roof associated with a Victorian style
house, there are factors that make this roof more palatable. First, the historic eaves of the
house will be able to be saved on the north and south facades of the building. Secondly,
approximately three-quarters of the pitches of the roof will also be saved which will be saving
historic fabric. This amendment preserves the look of the front of the house, preserves most of
the roof slopes in the rear that may be visible from the street, while remedying the water issues
in the rear.
The application stands as such:
1. Garage roof amended to an 8/12 roof with no dormers.
2. Construct gambrel type roof on the rear portion of the house
3. Replace both front doors with a matching pair.
4. Replace front porch posts.
5. Install operable wood shutters with historically accurate hinges.
The fence has been removed from this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval as amended with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
2. Approval of final shutter design and hardware prior to installation.
Page 13 of 44
COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2016
Ms. Roberts, when presented with the option of hearing the item or deferring, chose to have the
item heard that night.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the newly submitted drawings. Chairman BJ
Bowen asked if the fence would need a COA. Mr. Minyard stated that it would.
Stephanie Roberts made a presentation of her points that were covered in an email to Staff
referencing the Secretary of Interiors Standards for rehabilitation. She felt that she had met the
standards. Commissioner Toni Johnston stated that it was not up the Commission to determine
if the structure was contributing or not contributing but it was up the Commission to decide roof
changes. Vice Chari Jeremiah Russell and Commission Johnston had a discussion on what
would cause AHPP to determine if the structure was non-contributing after the roof addition was
made.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked what the cost difference was in the gambrel roof and the
pitched roof. Ms. Roberts stated that the gambrel was $8,000 more. Commissioner Russell
stated that it was not appropriate to have a gambrel roof on that structure. Ms. Roberts stated
that she needed a vote tonight so that they could get under construction before winter.
Commissioner Johnston made a motion to approve the item as submitted and Commissioner
Dick Kelley seconded.
Rhea Roberts, QQA, encouraged the commission to vote this evening to help her get a roof on
her house. She stated that she could see both sides of the argument and would support either.
She stated that she did not see any harm with the gambrel but was okay with the peak in the
front also.
Commissioner Kelley asked that if the application was turned down, what would happen. Ms.
Weldon stated that it could be expunged before moving onto another item. She continued that if
it was denied, she would have to wait one year unless there was a substantial change to the
application. Ms. Weldon stated that the commission could not be polled before a vote.
Commissioner Johnston stated that she would support either of the applications. Under the
circumstances, Commissioner Kelley stated he shared the same stance as Commissioner
Johnston.
Commissioner Johnson withdrew her motion. Stephanie Roberts amended her application from
the gambrel roof to the drawing submitted in the August 2016 hearing with the gable front visible
over the existing front roof.
No more citizens wished to speak at this time.
The application stands as such:
1. Garage roof amended to an 8/12 roof with no dormers.
2. Construct single pitch 12/12 roof on the rear portion of the house with a gable front
visible over the front of the house.
3. Replace both front doors with a matching pair.
4. Replace front porch posts.
5. Install operable wood shutters with historically accurate hinges.
Page 14 of 44
A motion was made by Vice Chair Russell to approve the amended application for the single
12/12 pitch roof. Commissioner Kelley seconded and the motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 absent
and 2 open positions.
Page 15 of 44
DATE: September 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC
ADDRESS: 1003 McMath Ave.
COA REQUEST: Infill House
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath
Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11,
and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This site that is under consideration for the two row
houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1003
McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1005 is a separate
item.
This project will be required to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to
revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has
finished their review.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a
search of the files.
The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897
Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed
McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings.
On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story
frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue
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 16 of 44
was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A
large wrap around porch faced the street corner and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story
addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the “Auto House” in the rear that fronted on
the alley.
Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the
1978 survey. It has been vacant since.
1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left) 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps
Proposed elevations
1001 McMath 1003-1005 McMath 1007 McMath
Page 17 of 44
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This proposal is to add two “Row Homes” at 1003 and 1005 McMath. This staff report will
address 1003 McMath. 1005 McMath is a separate item on this agenda. The “Row House” is
three stories tall with a gable front roof with stained oak horizontal siding on the front façade
with a front loading single car garage. The entry to the house is a side entry near the rear of the
house.
Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following:
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
(a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps,
and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved,
or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of
appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and
approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require
a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance
of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a
building permit is required.
(2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include
the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior
of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the
type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other
appurtenant fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill
posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required.
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving
or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or
demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application
for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been
submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of
appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
Page 18 of 44
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
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:
Page 19 of 44
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.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in
keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be
reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction.
The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the
following criteria:
Architectural style
General design
General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the
building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and
other appurtenant fixtures
Siting
Height
Proportion
Rhythm
Roof area
Entrance area
Wall areas
Detailing
Facade
Scale
Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of the building is contemporary.
Page 20 of 44
Elevations submitted August 14, 2016
GENERAL DESIGN. It is a three story single family residence with a gable end roof. The front
façade (west) is dominated by a garage door on the first floor and a large fixed window on the
second and third floor. Windows on the other three facades are scattered with various sizes
and shapes. The first floor is masonry; king size brick. The remainder of the front façade is
stained white oak laid horizontally. The remainders of the other three facades are proposed to
be corrugated CorTen steel wall panels. CorTen steel has a naturally oxidizing finish.
Weathering steel is a group of steel alloys developed to obviate the need for painting and form a
stable rust-like appearance if exposed to the weather for several years. The south facing slope
of the roof is proposed to have solar panels. The roof is proposed to have standing seam
CorTen steel panels.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE
KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL
WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER
APPURTENANT FIXTURES
See below for the descriptions of the remainder of the items.
Wall light fixtures are a Progress cylinder light fixture model 5675-
20/30k antique bronze LED. These are proposed on each side of
the garage door and by the entry door. The light is 14” tall and 5”
in diameter.
SITING The house will sit 10’-0” to the south of 1001 McMath, the
mixed use building. It will sit 8’-0” north of 1005. The front
setback will be aligned with the existing 1001 McMath. This
setback relates to 1001 McMath and does not relate to 1007
McMath.
HEIGHT According to plans, the house is 37’-4” plus 1’-4”
(foundation) for a total of 38’-8” tall. The height of 1001 per the
plans is 35’-2”. The law school dorms on McAlmont Street are between 32’-4’ and 37’-0”
depending on which parapet is measured. The yellow house is the shortest of them all at
between 30 and 31 feet tall. This would be the tallest structure in the area of significance.
Proposed Light Fixture
Page 21 of 44
PROPORTION The proportion of this
structure reads as very tall and skinny.
This is a ratio of 1 wide to 2.41 tall. This
is not a typical proportion for single
family houses in the district.
RHYTHM The west side of the structure
does have a rhythm, in the fact that
there is one opening per floor and they
are centered in the wall. The other
facades do not have a discernable
rhythm.
ROOF AREA. The house features a
gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. The roof
will be CorTen #ss675 standing seam
roof, 16” wide and 22 gauge metal.
There will be a fixed vented ridgecap 7”
on each slope. Some historic houses
originally had metal roofs, some
standing seam and some metal
shingles. The CorTen steel roof will be
a matte finish as the steel rusts and
produces a medium to dark brown color.
The roof shape and material is
appropriate to the district.
The solar panels are to be located on the south side of roof. They are made by Sunmodule
Plus SW280 Mondo Black. They are 8 kilowatt each and measure 66”x37” each. The proposal
is to place 20 panels on the south facing slope of the roof for an area of 30’x12’. The location is
for maximum efficiency, but they will be visible from the street
ENTRANCE AREA The entry door to the house is at the rear of the structure, not prominently
displayed. This is non-typical for single family houses in the district. The dominance of the
garage on the front façade is also very non-typical for the district. Staff surveyed the district and
did not find any front loading garages on single family houses. The visitor entry to the house is
West elevation of building
Image of Standing Seam roof Proposed Solar Panels
Page 22 of 44
at the rear of the structure with few visual clues
as to the location of the entry door. The entry
door will feature a raised wood deck with 2x6
wood decking. This will be approximately flush
with the threshold of the door. There will be no
handrails or railings. There will be a small
canopy over the door of CorTen standing seam
roofing
WALL AREAS This house features CorTen
corrugated steel siding or stained white oak.
King size brick (oversize) is on the first floor with
CMU foundation.
The foundation is in CMU block for a maximum
height of 2’-0”. CMU block is short for Common
Masonry Unit. These will be 8’x8’x16’ smooth
gray concrete blocks.
The brick is a king size brick made by Boral, the
Liberty Collection- Henderson with dimensions 9
5/8” x 2 ¾” x 3”. This is a larger size brick. This is a wire cut commercial brick.
The CorTen siding is a A606-4 Western Stated/Bridger Weathering Steel, installed in a vertical
orientation. It is a 22 gauge CorTen steel 7/8” corrugated in 37’ wide panels. The spacing of
the corrugations is 2 2/3” wide.
The garage door is a Masonite door, steel flush door in
24 gauge steel and is insulated. It measures 7’ tall by
12’. This is a single garage door with no raised panels
or windows.
The entry door is a 36” x 80” Masonite Sta-Tru HD
flush steel door with no glass.
The side and rear facades feature two horizontal slit
windows, twelve square windows, and two vertical
windows, one which is ganged with a casement window under a fixed window. The ratio of solid
wall to windows is atypical with so little of the walls being dedicated to windows. The windows
are Anderson 100 series Awning and Casement windows in Bronze. The windows are made of
Fibrex – a blend of 40 percent wood fiber by weight and 60 percent thermoplastic polymer by
weight. The letter of August 14th states they will be casement and awning windows.
The windows, according to the sketches, will not have interior muntins.
Sketch of entry area
Corrugated CorTen steel siding
Page 23 of 44
DETAILING The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and
windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim.
FAÇADE The front façade features a single garage door on the first floor with two fixed large
widows on the second and third floor. The front (west) façade will be sheathed in stained white
oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally.
The boards are approximately a 1” x 5”.
SCALE This proposed structure is unique to the district with a
ratio of 1:2.41 width to height. This is not a typical width to
height. Historic houses in the district are wider than this one at
16’. In the photos below, 923 McMath has a width to height of
1.5:1, 718 E 10th is more horizontal with a ratio of 1.74:1, 1007
McMath has a ratio of 1.3:1 and 712 E 11th has a ratio of 1.3:1.
These numbers were generated from survey photos. All of
these structures are wider than they are tall.
MASSING The massing of this building is taller in proportion tha
the rest of the buildings in the immediate area. The overall
mass may be similar, but the overtly vertical nature of it does not
blend with the neighborhood.
If the two houses were joined by some architectural feature to
emphasize the pedestrian visitor entry, the two houses might be
read as one and the proportion of the width to height would be
closer to a 1:1.
Proposed garage door (door only, not surround or brick) Proposed Entry door
Page 24 of 44
923 McMath 718 E 10th
1007 McMath 712 E 11th
SITE DESIGN
Fencing is to be pine wood and 4”x4”
utility wire, picture framed with pine and
attached with galvalume screws.
Driveways will be 12 feet wide in
concrete with apron flares at the street.
The walk to entry door appears to be
large concrete paver stones in concrete
based on the site plan. No detail has
been given.
This house does not blend with the
area of influence nor does it blend with
the district as a whole in the design
factors of Siting, Height, Proportion,
Rhythm, Entrance area, Wall areas, Scale, and Massing. The placement of the house on the lot
should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure
within the area of influence. The overall proportions do not blend with the district and the
rhythm of the exterior walls is undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to windo w area is
Proposed fence
Page 25 of 44
inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The scale and massing are
also atypical to the neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2016
The applicant was asked if he wanted to defer the item since there were only 4 commissioners
present. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer the item after it was heard by the Commission.
There was a discussion that according to the bylaws, an applicant can only defer five days in
advance of the hearing. It was decided that the Commission would defer the application after
the hearing for additional information.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. He noted the letter from the
Mayor.
Mr. Page Wilson, the applicant, made a presentation to the Commission with a PowerPoint
presentation. He spoke of row houses that were connected or separated and garages in the
front or the back. He spoke of the location of the site, that it is separated from the rest of the
district, and the individual structures that are contributing or non-contributing. He also noted
that he had a lease to own on the yellow house at 1007 McMath. He spoke of existing and new
curb cuts on McMath. He then spoke of his zoning on the site and reference the site plan. He
spoke of the distinct gable forms in the area and how they influenced his design. He also spoke
of the large fixed windows. He stated that he would be open to some sort of connection
between the two buildings and would not be covered all of the way through. Mr. Wilson
acknowledged that there are no single family structures where there is a front loaded garage.
He spoke of parking in the front yards. He spoke of materials to be used and said that he would
be open to a ribbon driveway to the units. He stated 1001 was built at 38’-2” tall but was shown
as 35’-2” on the elevations as submitted for the COA. The building was built taller because of
code requirements for the stairs.
Mr. Minyard read out of the guidelines Appendix K, the definition of height to clarify for the
Commissioners. It states: “The distance from the bottom to the top of a building or structure.”
He stated that he added the foundation height to the building height to get the proposed heights
of the buildings. He continued that there were different ways of calculating height in different
ways in different parts of the city. He continued the presentation with a discussion of height of
the building, and the elevations of the Heiple Wiedower infill plan. He read from page 54 of the
Guidelines under Alterations or Additions to Historic Additions and stated that these did not
apply to his project.
Mr. Wilson stated that he was open to installing a grill pattern in the front facing west windows ,
maybe snazzing up the garage doors, and reducing the concrete in the front. He then spoke of
the new African American Museum that was built on the Mall in W ashington DC.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked if he was open to changing the façade on the street view. Mr.
Wilson handed out two photos of his inspiration for the row house. Mr. Wilson stated that he
could add block or a wood piece in between the buildings. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated
that it would help to have a screen wall. It would be seen like a fence instead of a wall between
Page 26 of 44
the two. There was a question on what staff would call the structure. Mr. Minyard responded
that Staff would decide what to call it after it was submitted to them. There was a discussion on
the Guidelines recommendations on fence heights and the locations of the fences.
Commissioner Toni Johnson commented on the other duplexes being replatted for zero lot lines
and asked why he could not do that. Mr. Wilson replied that he wanted to separate them for
sound issues and ease of construction and build one at a time. He noted a negative public
perception of duplexes.
Commissioner Johnston stated that he was arguing for a looser interpretation of the guidelines
because of what is around it. They cannot throw out that many of the guidelines to support this
application. She spoke of the height, rhythm, scale, massing, and materials. To his comments
on this from being in the district already, she noted that Mr. Wilson was only showing a portion
of the building, not all of it.
Mr. Wilson stated that the CorTen steel looks rusty when it is done. Changes for opening and
not viewed as easily and will mostly be in the shadow. He continued that the solar panels will
be hard to see.
Vice Chair Russell stated that based on the four criteria, he believes that the project complies.
On orientation, he believes that it complies. On mass and scale, the form is an abstraction of
other houses from various styles of building. On the building form, he says this is a classic
form. On building materials, it has predominately used wood. On the facades, the metal will not
be seen from the street. Mr. Wilson stated that the orientation of the metal was vertical.
Mr. Wilson talked of the contributing and non-contributing map. He spoke of the new
apartments in the 500 block of Rock that are 50 feet high. He stated he was willing to add an
abstraction to join the building, but did not want it to be unsafe for the residents.
Vice Chair Russell wanted the applicant to bring physical samples of the steel and wood to the
meeting. Mr. Minyard stated that he had one piece of wood that was given to Staff, but it was
unremarkable. Mr. Minyard clarified that the wood should be attached to another piece so that
the Commission could see how the individual pieces are attached in relation to the others.
Chair BJ Bowen stated that the project did not have the typical proportion; the garage is on the
front; the height is taller; the entrance door is in the rear not prominently displayed; and the slit
windows need to be larger. All of these things do not adhere to the guidelines.
Mr. Wilson stated that on Italianate structures, the windows are all over the place in size. The
small windows are in the dark edges of the building and not seen from the street. The buildings
are 84’ long and 20’ wide. The shotguns he has built are either 18’ wide or 18’ with bumpouts.
He stated that he is not interested in building replica lite but has voted for them. He then spoke
of the Mayors letter. He continued that he did not get tax credits for these projects since he is in
new construction.
Vice Chair Russell stated that he still has issues with the proportion.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked has he thought about security between the buildings. Mr.
Wilson believes that eyes on the street will help the neighbors patrol the area. The windows do
not face each other.
Page 27 of 44
Rhea Roberts, QQA, stated that members of the advocacy group met with Mr. Wilson. They
appreciated the wood on the structures. Because of low numbers of contributing structures in
that area of the district, they did not have a huge problem with the form and shape. They are
concerned with the garage door on the front façade and the lack of any front door. Front doors
are common in the district.
A motion was withdrawn for waiving the bylaws.
Mr. Minyard stated for the record that as stated on the application form that all information must
be given to staff no later than three weeks before the meeting. That would mean that all
revisions would be due on September 19th. Mr. Wilson verified that he could meet that deadline.
A motion was made to defer both items at 1003 and 1005 McMath till October 10, 2016 for
further information by Vice Chair Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent
(Holder) and 2 open positions.
Page 28 of 44
DATE: September 12, 2016
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC
ADDRESS: 1005 McMath Ave.
COA REQUEST: Infill House
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath
Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11,
and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This site that is under consideration for the two row
houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1005
McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1003 is a separate
item.
This project will be required to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to
revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has
finished their review.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On December 9, 2013, The HDC denied an application
on this site for a three story mixed use building with
vertical ribbed metal siding.
On February 10, 2014, The HDC denied an application on this site for essentially the same
three story mixed use building with horizontal ribbed metal siding.
On March 10, 2014, The HDC approved an application on this site for essentially the same
three story mixed use building with horizontal HardiePlank lap siding.
This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2014 and was
approved by the Board of Directors on April 15, 2014.
On August 10, 2015, the HDC denied an application to change the HardiePlank siding to a
metal siding.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Two.
Location of Project
Page 29 of 44
The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897
Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed
McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings.
On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story
frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue
was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A
large wrap around porch faced the street corner and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story
addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the “Auto House” in the rear that fronted on
the alley.
Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the
1978 survey. It has been vacant since.
1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left) 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps
Proposed elevations
Page 30 of 44
1001 McMath 1003-1005 McMath 1007 McMath
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF
THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF
INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
This proposal is to add two “Row Homes” at
1003 and 1005 McMath. This staff report will
address 1005 McMath. 1003 McMath is a
separate item on this agenda. The “Row
House” is three stories tall with a gable front
roof with stained oak horizontal siding on the
front façade with a front loading single car
garage. The entry to the house is a side entry
near the rear of the house.
Authority of the Little Rock Historic District
Commission is authorized by the following:
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
(a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps,
and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved,
or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of
appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and
approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require
a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance
of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a
building permit is required.
(2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include
the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior
of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the
type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other
appurtenant fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill
posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required.
Contributing and Non-contributing map
Page 31 of 44
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
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
Page 32 of 44
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.
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
Page 33 of 44
General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the
building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and
other appurtenant fixtures
Siting
Height
Proportion
Rhythm
Roof area
Entrance area
Wall areas
Detailing
Facade
Scale
Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of the building is contemporary.
Elevations submitted August 14, 2016
GENERAL DESIGN. It is a three story single family residence with a gable end roof. The front
façade (west) is dominated by a garage door on the first floor and a large fixed window on the
second and third floor. Windows on the other three facades are scattered with various sizes
and shapes. The first floor is masonry; king size brick. The remainder of the front façade and
the south facades are stained white oak laid horizontally. The remainders of the north and east
facades are proposed to be corrugated CorTen steel wall panels. CorTen steel has a naturally
oxidizing finish. Weathering steel is a group of steel alloys developed to obviate the need for
painting and form a stable rust-like appearance if exposed to the weather for several years. The
south facing slope of the roof is proposed to have solar panels. The roof is proposed to have
standing seam CorTen steel panels.
Page 34 of 44
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE
KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL
WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER
APPURTENANT FIXTURES
See below for the descriptions of the remainder of the items.
Wall light fixtures are a Progress cylinder light fixture model 5675-
20/30k antique bronze LED. These are proposed on each side of
the garage door and by the entry door. The light is 14” tall and 5”
in diameter.
SITING The house will sit 10’-0” to the south of 1001 McMath, the
mixed use building. It will sit 8’-0” north of 1005. The front
setback will be aligned with the existing 1001 McMath. This
setback relates to 1001 McMath and does not relate to 1007
McMath. With this house, 1005, sitting much closer to the street
than 1007 McMath, the south side of the structure will be much
more visible from the street. Large expanses of wall with little or
no windows do not blend with the district.
HEIGHT According to plans, the house is 37’-4” plus 1’-4” (foundation) for a total of 38’-8” tall.
The height of 1001 per the plans is 35’-2”. The law school dorms on McAlmont Street are
between 32’-4’ and 37’-0” depending on which parapet is measured. The yellow house is the
shortest of them all at between 30 and 31 feet tall. This would be the tallest structure in the area
of significance.
PROPORTION The proportion of this
structure reads as very tall and skinny.
This is a ratio of 1 wide to 2.41 tall. This
is not a typical proportion for single family
houses in the district.
RHYTHM The west side of the structure
does have a rhythm, in the fact that there
is one opening per floor and they are
centered in the wall. The other facades
do not have a discernable rhythm.
ROOF AREA. The house features a
gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. The roof will
be CorTen #ss675 standing seam roof,
16” wide and 22 gauge metal. There will
be a fixed vented ridgecap 7” on each
slope. Some historic houses originally
had metal roofs, some standing seam
and some metal shingles. The CorTen
steel roof will be a matte finish as the
steel rusts and produces a medium to
dark brown color. The roof shape and
material is appropriate to the district.
Proposed Light Fixture
West elevation of building
Page 35 of 44
The solar panels are to be located on the south side of roof. They are made by Sunmodule
Plus SW 280 Mondo Black. They are 8 kilowatt each and measure 66”x37” each. The proposal
is to place 20 panels on the south facing slope of the roof for an area of 30’x12’. The location is
for maximum efficiency, but they will be visible from the street.
ENTRANCE AREA The entry door to the house
is at the rear of the structure, not prominently
displayed. This is non-typical for single family
houses in the district. The dominance of the
garage on the front façade is also very non-
typical for the district. Staff surveyed the district
and did not find any front loading garages on
single family houses. The visitor entry to the
house is at the rear of the structure with few
visual clues as to the location of the entry door.
The entry door will feature a raised wood deck
with 2x6 wood decking. This will be
approximately flush with the threshold of the
door. There will be no handrails or railings.
There will be a small canopy over the door of
CorTen standing seam roofing.
WALL AREAS This house features CorTen
corrugated steel siding or stained white oak.
White Oak is on the west and south facades and
the CorTen is on the north and east facades.
King size brick (oversize) is on the first floor with CMU foundation.
The foundation is in CMU block for a maximum height of 2’-0”. CMU block is short for Common
Masonry Unit. These will be 8’x8’x16’ smooth gray concrete blocks.
The brick is a king size brick made by Boral, the Liberty Collection- Henderson with dimensions
9 5/8” x 2 ¾” x 3”. This is a larger size brick. This is a wire cut commercial brick.
Image of Standing Seam roof Proposed Solar Panels
Sketch of entry area
Page 36 of 44
The CorTen siding is a A606-4 Western Stated/Bridger
Weathering Steel, installed in a vertical orientation. It
is a 22 gauge CorTen steel 7/8” corrugated in 37’ wide
panels. The spacing of the corrugations is 2 2/3” wide.
The south side façade will be sheathed in stained
white oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed
flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally. The
boards are approximately a 1” x 5”.
The garage door is a Masonite door, steel flush door in
24 gauge steel and is insulated. It measures 7’ tall by
12’. This is a single garage door with no raised panels or windows.
The entry door is a 36” x 80” Masonite Sta-Tru HD flush steel door with no glass.
The side and rear facades feature two horizontal slit windows, twelve square windows, and two
vertical windows, one which is ganged with a casement window under a fixed window. The ratio
of solid wall to windows is atypical with so little of the walls being dedicated to windows. The
windows are Anderson 100 series Awning and Casement windows in Bronze. The windows are
made of Fibrex – a blend of 40 percent wood fiber by weight and 60 percent thermoplastic
polymer by weight. The letter of August 14th states they will be casement and awning windows.
The windows, according to the sketches, will not have interior muntins.
DETAILING The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and
windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim.
FAÇADE The front façade features a single garage door on the first floor with two fixed large
widows on the second and third floor. The front (west) façade will be sheathed in stained white
Corrugated CorTen steel siding
Proposed garage door (door only, not surround or brick) Proposed Entry door
Page 37 of 44
oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally.
The boards are approximately a 1” x 5”.
SCALE This proposed structure is unique to the district with a
ratio of 1:2.41 width to height. This is not a typical width to
height. Historic houses in the district are wider than this one at
16’. In the photos below, 923 McMath has a width to height of
1.5:1, 718 E 10th is more horizontal with a ratio of 1.74:1, 1007
McMath has a ratio of 1.3:1 and 712 E 11th has a ratio of 1.3:1.
These numbers were generated from survey photos. All of
these structures are wider than they are tall.
MASSING The massing of this building is taller in proportion
than the rest of the buildings in the immediate area. The
overall mass may be similar, but the overtly vertical nature of it
does not blend with the neighborhood.
If the two houses were joined by some architectural feature to
emphasize the pedestrian visitor entry, the two houses might
be read as one and the proportion of the width to height would
be closer to a 1:1.
923 McMath 718 E 10th
1007 McMath 712 E 11th
Page 38 of 44
SITE DESIGN
Fencing is to be pine wood and 4”x4”
utility wire, picture framed with pine and
attached with galvalume screws.
Driveways will be 12 feet wide in
concrete with apron flares at the street.
The walk to entry door appears to be
large concrete paver stones in concrete
based on the site plan. No detail has
been given.
This house does not blend with the
area of influence nor does it blend with
the district as a whole in the design
factors of Siting, Height, Proportion,
Rhythm, Entrance area, Wall areas, Scale, and Massing. The placement of the house on the lot
should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure
within the area of influence. The overall proportions do not blend with the district and the
rhythm of the exterior walls is undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to window area is
inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The scale and massing are
also atypical to the neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2016
See discussion of 1003 McMath for general comments on this item.
A motion was made to defer both items at 1003 and 1005 McMath till October 10, 2016 for
further information by Vice Chair Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent
(Holder) and 2 open positions.
Proposed fence
Page 39 of 44
DATE: October 10, 2016
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District Wide
COA REQUEST: Guidelines Revisions
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The City of Little Rock through the CLG program applied for and received a grant for the
revision of the Guidelines concerning Infill Development. The Commission reviewed and edited
the work submitted by the consultant. On June 3, 2016, Commissioner Jeremiah Russell
submitted a new proposed version which then became the latest draft. The draft that is being
reviewed at this time is substantially that version with some additions and modifications.
Additional items that have been noted by Staff since the last revision have been added to the list
to be reviewed by the Commission.
The Commission has had two presentations from Phil Walker (the Consultant hired via the
grant) in public hearings on April 13 (Initial observations in Key Issues Report) and June 8, 2015
(presentation of the proposed text). In addition, the guidelines were discussed in additional
public hearings on February 9, 2015 with discussion of topics to be included for revisions; May
11th, 2015 with discussion of the Key Issues Report; September 14, 2015 with discussion of the
tour and individual changes to text; October 12, 2015 for suspension of discussion and tour
dates; March 14, 2016 with Staff asking for all changes to be presented to Staff by March 31st;
and May 9, 2016 with Commission Wilson wanting to add items to the review package.
Workshops for the commissioners were held on July 13, 2015, April 25, 2016, May 23, 2016,
and July 18, 2016. The Commission also had a tour on February 24, 2016 of parts of the
MacArthur Park, Governor’s Mansion and South Main National Register Historic Districts with
Ellen Harris, the director of Historic Savannah.
Please refer to the minutes of April 13 and June 8, 2015 for background information concerning
citizen input and the discussion of the Key Issues Report. The minutes are available online at
http://web.littlerock.state.ar.us/weblink/Welcome.aspx?cr=1
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Three.
Page 40 of 44
As suggested in the Key issue report, the Guidelines have been reorganized as follows: (Page
numbers updated for September 2016 hearing)
Old
section
numbers
Old
page
numbers
Headings/subjects New
Section
Numbers
New
page
numbers
I 6-8 Introduction and Overview of Historic
Preservation and Design Guidelines
I 1-2
II 9-14 Historic Preservation in LR II 3-6
IV 41-52 Treatment of original materials - residential III 9
VIII 67-71 Treatment of original materials - Commercial and
Mixed Use Structures
III 11-12
Individual Building Elements - Residential III 13-22
Individual Building Elements – Commercial and
Mixed Use
III 23-26
V 53-54 Design Guidelines for Additions and alterations IV 27-32
V 55-56 New construction – residential V 33-44
VIII 71 New construction - commercial V 45-54
VII 65-66 Relocation/demolition VI 58-59
VI 57-64 Site design VII 60-67
III 15-40 Architectural styles VIII 68-93
I 1-5 Legal and procedures IX 94-99
IX 73-110 Appendices including state and local laws first X 100-160
It is the goal of Staff to reshoot all photos in the Guidelines in color before publication.
There are minor edits that are being proposed by Staff to update the Guidelines. Some are
typos and clarifications and some are substantive. They are described below. All page
numbers refer to the draft dated August 17, 2016 that was published online on August 19, 2016.
On page iii, the acknowledgments page has been updated to include current members and
acknowledgements.
On pages v-viii, the Table of Contents has been updated to reflect the new organization and
content.
On page 1, Staff proposes to update the number of total districts in the city on the first page of
the “Overview of Historic Preservation and Design Guidelines” from twelve to twenty-one and
updated the location of the map of the MacArthur Park Historic District.
On page 27 under Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions, the heading of the section is
proposing to delete the words And Detached New Construction. The references to the Heiple
Wiedower study from 2000 are proposed to be deleted. The Secretary of the Interior Standards
is proposed to be deleted; they are shown at the top of the page. The word Objective in the last
paragraph is proposed to be deleted from a format perspective.
On page 29-30, new text is being proposed; Sustainable Technology. This text covers solar
panels and wind turbines.
Page 41 of 44
On page 31-32, the existing language for New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings
for Residential is proposed to be deleted. This is a major change to the Guidelines. The new
text, located on pages 33-43 follows the design factors of the State law and City ordinance more
closely. Those factors are listed on page 34. The texts in red are the last edits proposed. Some
graphics are new. Page 43, the photos of new construction, is new. This only shows completed
projects.
On page 45, the existing text for New Construction of Commercial Structures is proposed to be
deleted. This is a major change to the Guidelines. The new text, located on pages 46-55
follows the design factors of the State law and City ordinance more closely. Those factors are
listed on page 46. The texts in red are the last edits proposed. Some graphics are new. Page
55, the photos of new construction, is new. This only shows completed projects.
On page 56, the proposed Map of Contributing and Non-Contributing Structures is new.
On page 58, it is proposed to add to the language for the review of moving houses into the
district. The language was very broad and vague and needed clarification. Also, the
Department of Planning and Development is proposed to be corrected.
On page 60, text on the character of landscape elements is proposed to be added.
On page 61, there is text proposed to be changed on the height of fences.
When the backyard of a corner property “A” abuts the front yard of the adjacent property “B”,
and when property “A” installs a fence taller than 36” abutting the street, it may diminish the
front yard of property “B”. The zoning ordinance states that between a required building setback
line and a street right-of-way, the maximum height shall be lower than other fences in the rear
yard. The zoning ordinance would require the street facing privacy fence (greater than 4’ tall) to
be set back the distance of the side yard setback of 10% of the lot or 5 feet. Those five feet
may differ from the actual setback of the primary structure. The HDC may be stricter than the
zoning code, but cannot be less strict without the project having a public hearing with the
Planning Commission or the Board of
Adjustment.
The proposed language is below and the
complete page is shown near the end of this
document.
Fences in side and rear yards with street
frontages should not impede views of
adjacent houses that have a different
orientation. For those fences, the
location of the fences that are in excess of
36”, as shown in red, should be the wall
of the primary building or 15’, whichever
is less.
On page 63-64, the graphic for lighting are proposed to be moved to the Design Guidelines for
Rehabilitation – Residential section since they depict lighting fixtures attached to a structure.
Proposed Graphic
Page 42 of 44
On page 66, under Solar Collectors, the text is proposed to be removed since it will be more
fully described in the Sustainable Technologies sections.
On pages listing the Architectural Styles, pages 68-92, it is proposed to update the listings of
individual houses based on the survey information provided by AHPP. Many photos have been
updated with color photos.
On page 95, in the middle of the page under “This COA requirement does not apply to:” the
following changes are proposed to be made. An additional condition was added the last time
the Guidelines were edited, but the “or” was left between condition 2 and 3 instead of being
moved to between condition 3 and 4. In this edit, additional text of “as defined by the zoning
ordinance” was added to condition number 1.
On page 101, the map of all National Register Historic Districts is proposed to be updated. (The
last district added was in 2013.)
On page 102 – 106, proposed changes are to update the numbers of structures and
percentages on two districts and to add the listing for the Dunbar District.
On page 108, it is proposed to amend the number of districts from thirteen to twenty-one.
On guidelines page 109 in the “comparison of the National Register and Local Ordinance
Historic Districts, there are two proposed changes. The words “patters of intake” should be
“patterns of intact”. Also, state income tax credits needed to be added to the text.
On guidelines page 133, text has been changed to not require COAs for tuck-pointing of brick.
It has also been changed on guidelines page 138 under the Maintenance appendix. This
change was approved by the Commission on April 13, 2015.
On page 135, language is proposed to be added to the Artificial Siding Policy to clarify that this
policy is for existing structures and not new construction.
After the item is approved, the document will be reformatted to remove all of the struck
language. Some graphics will need to be repositioned to match with the accompanying text.
Page numbers will change as a result.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
During the April 13, 2015 hearing, speakers included Director Erma Hendrix, Rhea Roberts of
the QQA, Lindsey Moore, Rebecca Pekar, and Stephanie Roberts.
During the June 8, 2015 hearing, speakers included Keith Canfield, Rhea Roberts of the QQA,
Dale Pekar, Becky Pekar, John Bush, and Kathy Wells.
Since August 19, 2016, there have been 3 phone calls of a neutral nature and two emails with
proposed text changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Forthcoming.
COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the changes to the text. He noted that a
mailing was sent to all property owners for tonight’s meeting. He noted the six comments from
Page 43 of 44
citizens for this meeting. Two of the comments, you have hard copies of the edits. Chair BJ
Bowen stated that he wished to have citizen comments now and for the commissioners to take
home the comments and review them for the next meeting.
Joe Stanley, architect, was on the CZDC for six years and is part of Studio Main and is
representing them. He is in agreement with the Mayor’s letter. He applauds the open
mindedness of the commission since it is hard to blend the new with the old. Studio Main would
like to have discussion of new infill in the future.
Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated that if Studio Main was interested, the discussion needs to
be soon. Mr. Stanley stated that they may be late to the table but if there was a strong
opposition, it would have been expressed already. Studio Main has an ongoing discussion with
Ethel Goodstein at the UofA Fayetteville.
Rhea Roberts, QQA, offered Curran Hall for public presentation of the Guidelines for additional
public comments. They believe that they may be able to get additional public comment for the
Guidelines.
Page Wilson believed that should have a record of our time in the structures. He believes that
the guidelines stress replica lite. He stated he has read the latest version and it is all subjective.
He commented that the new guidelines look eerily like the old guidelines. He would like to
continue discussion in the future. He wants to postpone vote and continue the dialogue. He
want them to be not so subjective and open ended.
Staff will make typo changes to text but not substantive changes.
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff has no resolution on the filing on Rock and Capitol for fence violations.
Certificates of Compliance
A spreadsheet was given to the Commission earlier in the agenda meeting.
Guidelines Revision
There was a discussion to have a public meeting at Curran Hall to be hosted by the QQA tc
discuss Guideline changes with citizens. Rhea Roberts will coordinate a time and date.
Commissioners are welcome to attend and the press will be notified of the meeting in advance.
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 7:18 p.m.
Attest:
Date
/0
Date
Page 44 of 44