Loading...
HDC_10 10 2016Page 1 of 68 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, October 10, 2016, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (5) in number. Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Toni Johnson Dick Kelley Ted Holder Members Absent: Open Position (Property Owner) Open Position (Property Owner Resident) City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Tom Adams Jonathan Opitz Frank Barksdale Deanna Jones James Sullivan Wm. “Page” Wilson Ryan Lasiter Tommy Lasiter Adam Day Jimmy Moses Approval of Minutes A motion was made to approve the minutes of the September 2016 hearing as submitted by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Toni Johnson. The minutes were approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions. The applicants at tonight’s meeting were informed that with only five members present that the Commission can defer their items to the next agenda if the applicants wished. A minimum of four positive votes is required for a motion to be approved no matter how many Commissioners are in attendance. This would mean that four out of five must vote for your item to be approved. The applicants will state if they want to defer at the beginning of their item. 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 68 DATE: October 10, 2016 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC ADDRESS: 1003 McMath Ave. COA REQUEST: Infill House PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11, and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This site that is under consideration for the two row houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1003 McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1005 is a separate item. This project will be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has finished their review. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897 Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings. On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A large wrap around porch faced the street corner and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the “Auto House” in the rear that fronted on the alley. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. Location of Project Page 3 of 68 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 4 of 68 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This proposal is to add two “Row Homes” at 1003 and 1005 McMath. This staff report will address 1003 McMath. 1005 McMath is a separate item on this agenda. The “Row House” is three stories tall with a gable front roof with stained oak horizontal siding on the front façade with a front loading single car garage. The entry to the house is a side entry near the rear of the house. Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following: Text of the Arkansas state statute: 14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition. (a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a building permit is required. (2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures. (b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission. The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required. Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations. In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. Page 5 of 68 The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be reviewed: Sec 23-120. – General Criteria (f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d). (d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors within the building's area of influence: (1) Siting. (2) Height. (3) Proportion. (4) Rhythm. (5) Roof area. (6) Entrance area. (7) Wall areas. (8) Detailing. (9) Facade. (10) Scale. (11) Massing. The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction: B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. Page 6 of 68 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 7 of 68 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 8 of 68 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 9 of 68 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 10 of 68 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 11 of 68 923 McMath 718 E 10th 1007 McMath 712 E 11th SITE DESIGN Fencing is to be pine wood and 4”x4” utility wire, picture framed with pine and attached with galvalume screws. Driveways will be 12 feet wide in concrete with apron flares at the street. The walk to entry door appears to be large concrete paver stones in concrete based on the site plan. No detail has been given. This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Entrance area, Wall areas, Scale, and Massing. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence. The overall proportions do not blend with the district and the rhythm of the exterior walls is undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to window area is Proposed fence Page 12 of 68 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 Washington DC. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked if he was open to changing the façade on the street view. Mr. Wilson handed out two photos of his inspiration for the row house. Mr. Wilson stated that he could add block or a wood piece in between the buildings. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated that it would help to have a screen wall. It would be seen like a fence instead of a wall between Page 13 of 68 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 14 of 68 Rhea Roberts, QQA, stated that members of the advocacy group met with Mr. Wilson. They appreciated the wood on the structures. Because of low numbers of contributing structures in that area of the district, they did not have a huge problem with the form and shape. They are concerned with the garage door on the front façade and the lack of any front door. Front doors are common in the district. A motion was withdrawn for waiving the bylaws. Mr. Minyard stated for the record that as stated on the application form that all information must be given to staff no later than three weeks before the meeting. That would mean that all revisions would be due on September 19th. Mr. Wilson verified that he could meet that deadline. A motion was made to defer both items at 1003 and 1005 McMath till October 10, 2016 for further information by Vice Chair Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent (Holder) and 2 open positions. STAFF UPDATE: October 10, 2016 On September 19, 2016 Staff received an additional drawing of an entry feature. It will span the area between the two buildings and function as a gate to the entry area. It will be made of horizontal white oak boards and have a ‘roof’ overhang. See the end of the report for more detailed drawings. View from northwest View from southwest The national register historic district and local ordinance historic district is named “MacArthur Park”. The district was drawn to surround the park on all four sides and take in residential and commercial areas on all four sides of the park. This site is an important site in the district as it fronts onto MacArthur Park and is within view of National Historic Landmark Individually Listed Arsenal building. The contributing structures on the street are the Law School at 1201 McMath (originally the UAMS Medical School), the house at 1007 McMath and the house at 923 McMath. In Arkansas, the out buildings are also shown as contributing as an accessory structure to the principal structure. They are not contributing in their own right. Page 15 of 68 Staff inventoried the neighborhood for single family houses with garage doors on the front façade of the house - there are none. There are seven detached garages with garage doors facing the street in the district. These structures are in the rear of properties where carriage houses were originally sited. The ones that were mentioned in the presentation, The Lincoln House at 301 E 7th Street, 624 S Rock Street, 1023 Cumberland and 1003 S Scott Street were built as residential with a carriage house in the rear of the structure. All of these are on corner lots with the garage doors facing the other street. The Lincoln House (panoramic photo) The Lincoln House, an Italianate structure is shown above with the front façade facing 7th Street and the detached garage facing Cumberland Street. The detached garage is to the left in the photo behind the tree. Page 16 of 68 624 S Rock Street (panoramic photo) 624 S Rock is shown above with the front façade facing Rock Street and the detached garage facing 7th Street. The detached garage is to the right in the photo. 1003 S Scott Street front facade 1003 S Scott Street side facade The Bragg Apartments at 1003 S Scott is shown above. This building from is unique in the fact that the detached garage is located at the far back corner of the lot with the garage accessible from both street and two garage doors on two façades. This does fit the pattern in the facade that the garage is smaller in footprint area, smaller in mass and is located on a corner lot. Page 17 of 68 1023 S Cumberland front facade 1023 S Cumberland side facade 1023 S Cumberland is shown above with the front façade facing Cumberland Street and the detached garage on the right in the photos facing 11th Street. These four houses with the accompanying detached garages were a common form at the time. A larger principal structure was located at the front of the lot and a smaller, in footprint, detached garage at the rear of the property was either one or two story. The two storied examples were often used for servants’ quarters and later were used as apartments for rental income. This pattern of houses with detached garages is common in multiple historic districts in the city. This pattern is not dependent on whether an alley is present. On page 2 of this report, the Sanborn Maps show multiple accessory buildings along the alley way in the 1000 block of McMath. The detached garages were built as an accessory structures on the lot. An accessory structure is built on the same lot as the principal structure; serves the principal building; is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose. These four examples are perfect examples of accessory structures. North Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage East Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage South Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage West Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage Page 18 of 68 This structure is the detached garage at 1003 S Scott Street. This structure does have corrugated metal in a vertical orientation on the east and south side. This detached garage is to the rear of the lot on the east and on the property line on the south, has access from the both streets, and is an accessory structure. The metal siding is on the sides of the garage that is farthest away from the house and farthest from the streets. The street facing façades, the north and west façade with the garage doors has brick veneer that matches the brick of the house. The west façade, a solid wall that is closest to the house, is all brick that matches the house. Parking of cars does occur in the front setback of some structures that were built as single family houses in the district and has for some time. This is rare and the only case that Staff knows of are the houses on the 600 block of Ferry Street. There is not an alley to the rear of these lots so parking on the street or in the front yards are the only option. At least one house does not have off street parking. There are also some apartment buildings that only have on street parking. The single family row houses that are proposed to be built have only a garage door on the front of the units. The added entry feature as shown in the revised drawings may not be built until the second unit is finished as a builder would have to work around it. The entry feature’s gate to the entry area is not very pronounced and will depend on the walkway from the public sidewalk to announce that this is the entrance to the two units. Staff inventoried the district and did not find any single family structures with front facing garages. The houses that have parking in the front yards do not have alley access. 1003 and 1005 McMath have alley access from the rear of the lots. The cover letter states that “This will be our final application in MacArthur Park Historic District for New Construction.” If that is true, then the floor plans could be modified and the garage doors could be located to the rear of the structures. In the Site Design section of the guidelines, it states that “Accommodations for automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood as possible.” Accommodations for automobiles include garage doors. Placing garage doors on the front façade of a structure does not make the unobtrusive nor the automobile parked behind it. Residential parking should be as stated on page 61 of the Guidelines: “Parking areas and garages for houses should be located in the rear of the house, with entrance from an alley or from a side driveway. Parking should not be in the front yard. Original designs, materials, and placement of driveways should be preserved. If the driveway must lead from the street through a side yard to parking in the rear, brick or concrete tracks or narrow strips are recommended, with grass or ground cover filling the median. Side or rear driveways should be gravel or smooth concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick.” The four examples of detached garages are in keeping with the guidelines since they access the garage through a side yard and the garage is in the rear of the lot. The g uidelines would suggest that the floor plan be modified so that the garage doors are on the rear of the structure with access from the already paved alley. In the Guidelines on page 55, it lists four principles to follow. They are listed on page 4 and 5 of this report. 1. Building Orientation: “The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of Page 19 of 68 the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.” The form of 1001 McMath could be viewed as a corner commercial building with residential uses above which were common in Little Rock in the past. However, the other buildings in those blocks adhered to a residential setback which accentuated the commercial form on the corner. Originally there were three houses in the 1000 block of McMath as shown on the Sanborn maps that had similar front yard setbacks. 1007 McMath is the only one of the three houses which had uniform setbacks to survive. 2. Building Mass and Scale: “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” In the last hearing, the applicant stated that 1001 McMath was actually 38’-2” tall, three feet taller than the application showed. The roof on 1001 slants to the east which diminishes the mass as the viewer looks east. The houses proposed at 1003 and 1005 have a constant ridgeline of 38’-8”. These two houses will be built taller and the farther one is to the east, the more the height difference will be between the buildings. This would be the tallest structure in the area of significance. The guidelines state that “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” These individual structures do not comply with this statement. The individual houses ratios are unusually tall to their width. If the entry feature is added, and is deemed to visually combine the structures into one, the overall height to width could be more in line with other structures in the district. 3. Building Form “Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)” The house features a gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. Some historic houses originally had metal roofs, some standing seam and some metal shingles. The roof shape and material is appropriate to the district. The entrance area to each unit is to the rear of the structure. The entry feature that was proposed might serve as the entry to the two units with the contemporary porch, but the horizontal slats of wood do not differentiate the door versus the rest of the wall section. More detail will be needed to be provided to assure that this reads as a combined entry to the units. The windows in the units on three sides are random and lacking rhythm. In the photos of houses, there is a discernable rhythm in the window placement. There is also a commonality of window shapes that are rectangular in shape placed vertically on the façade. 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar Page 20 of 68 and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) The wall areas are to be either stained white oak, brick, or CorTen corrugated steel siding in a vertical orientation. Wood siding is a common material in the district. Corrugated metal siding on a wall surface is found on accessory buildings in the district. Half of 1005 and more than half of 1003 is proposed to be built out of a material that is found on accessory structures on a non- dominant façade. The standing seam roof proposed was used on several historic structures in the district. The garage door and entry doors into the units are flush with no glass inserts and no raised panels. The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim. This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Rhythm, Entrance area, and Wall areas. The added submittal of the entry feature may affect the Proportion, Scale, or Massing of the structure. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence. The rhythm of the exterior walls on the east, north and south sides are undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to window area is inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The scale and massing are also atypical to the neighborhood. The ordinance states in Section 23-120 (f): “Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence.” With the above listed concerns, the proposed structure is not appropriate for the district. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item focusing on the changes made to the application since the last hearing. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if the QQA had made a comment on the item. Mr. Minyard read their comments from the approved minutes. Page Wilson made a presentation. He spoke of context of the area with contributing structures, zoning, curb cuts, other buildings, and that he did not feel that this was a neighborhood. He mentioned Form; Orientation; Material; and Mass and Scale; the four items for “New Construction”. He referenced these that are found on page 55 of the Guidelines. He referenced the gable form of parts of other buildings and showed examples in the PowerPoint. Mr. Wilson stated that Adam Day gave him help on the design. He extrapolated the two houses and the space between them as two pens in a dogtrot without the roof. Page 21 of 68 He handed out drawings that showed the approved PCD site plan that showed proposed buildings and spoke of different departments and agencies that had input on the Planning Commission approval. He talked about the ecology area in the rear of the site with the retention pond. He stated that the pond could not change. He spoke of four parking spaces off the alley for 1001 McMath. Mr. Wilson approached the dais and explained the map to Commissioner Johnson. He referred to the Low Impact Development LID as soft engineering. There is an expansion shown at 1007 McMath in the rear. He has 1007 McMath under a lease to own contract and is unsure whether or not they will do the expansion. He referred to the open space in the middle of the development as park space, natural areas, and common area. He stated that this will be the last application for him, but someone else may represent him or he may sell the project. He talked about platting and sewer line replatting issues. He desires to keep open space and show project like it was built over time. There were no questions from the Commissioner on the site plan. Commissioner Ted Holder commented that the plan shows trees along McMath and 10th street. The new curb cuts would get rid of the trees. Mr. Wilson stated that the hackberry on the site will come out and the maple tree will stay in the front yard of 1007. Mr. Wilson stated that site plan was done for the City Beautiful Commission (CBC). He planted eight species of trees which is in excess of the two species required. Two trees would be put back in on McMath. He stated that he is okay with installing a ribbon driveway for the units. He also stated he has a few more trees to plant. Mr. Wilson agreed with Staff that there are no single family houses with garages on the front façade. He thinks that they are good examples of how people park in garages off the street. He spoke of a contributing structure at 11th and Commerce, the ranch house which has a carport on the side of the house and he questioned what the difference in a carport and a garage was. The related a portico with a carport. He then spoke of a building at 8th and Rock which he said belonged to the Terry Mansion. It has garage doors facing the street and the entry doors to the side. He thinks his proposal is appropriate with garage in the front. He talked about Bylites garage door. He brought brick, CorTen steel and wood examples. The stated the CorTen steel was eleven gauge steel. He put the oak bards together to show how they would be assembled. Commissioner Johnson asked how the wood would be adhered to the building, would it overlap. Mr. Wilson said that he did not think he would have to put it on furring strips and that it would not overlap. He described a staining technique that uses vinegar that he planned on using. The finish of the white oak is the same, CorTen steel has a little more aging to do than the sample that the has brought. He may change the brick color. He will not use red, pink or orange brick on the units. He stated he did not bring the staff report. Commissioner Johnson asked about the Mayor’s letter. Mr. Wilson referred her to the last paragraph of the Mayor’s letter. He discussed the last paragraph of the Mayor’s letter. Mr. Wilson believes he is following the guidelines with new construction. Page 22 of 68 Mr. Wilson handed out a copy of the graphic from the Heiple Wiedower Study. He believes that this is how a neighborhood should look over time. Mr. Wilson stated that parking should be unobtrusive. The Commission will decide ’what’ unobtrusive is. He talked about progression of architectural styles in the district. He stated that he has to follow Public Works guidelines on curb cuts. Mr. Wilson believes that this building is not the tallest. He had a list of the buildings that he believes are taller than his. He ended his presentation with the Museum of Black History on the Mall in Washington DC. This is what something old and something new look l like toge ther. He quoted section B, page 55, of the New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings guidelines on page 55 of the Guidelines. Concerning Building Orientation, with UU zoning, he believes it should line up with 1001 McMath instead of 1007 McMath. He mentioned that 1009 was close to the street. On Building Mass and Scale, the thought he met the threshold with entries in the rear. The thought his new entry feature that tied the building together. On Building Form, he referenced the gable form and dog trot integrations. On Building Materials, he believes he is similar. He then handed out a picture of CorTen steel staining seam metal on a house. Mr. Wilson stated he was fronting MacArthur Park. He said that he has spent eleven years on the MacArthur Park group. He said he recruited Sharon Priest to the MacArthur Park Group. He references the Park as the core or spoke of neighborhood. He stated nobody had worked harder to make a difference for MacPark. He spoke of contributions to other ar eas and talked about the condition of the park. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked him to stay on topic with his presentation. He thinks that his building will not harm the park. The area will never go back to the density that was there before. He is trying to add some density back to the neighborhood. Commissioner Holder suggested switching the garage doors. Commissioner Holder stated that the applicant wanted open spaces and the space in the rear is not that big in comparison to the very large open space of the park across the street. He asked if Mr. Wilson could change parking in the rear to be angled and have enough space to have driveways to the garages in the back of the buildings. Mr. Wilson said he did not have enough room to add more park ing. Commissioner Holder believes that he does. Vice Chair Russell asked if the garages are required for the project. Mr. Wilson stated that they were for potential buyers. Vice Chair Russell stated that in UU zoning, off street parking is not required. He continued that the argument is against curb cuts at the front of the house. He did not believe that people moved to MacArthur Park in order to park in their garages. He asked again if garages are required for the project. Would it be a detriment on the project? Vice Chair Russell asked if he would be willing to get rid of the garages. Mr. Wilson said maybe but his project must be competitive. Row houses with garages are more desirable. Vice Chair Russell commented on the guests would have to come down alley between houses. Chair BJ Bowen asked if there was a way to angle the parking in the rear. Mr. Wilson spoke about placement of utilities and the green space. Mr. Wilson stated he believes in sustainability and urban infill. Page 23 of 68 Commissioner Dick Kelley asked where the property line in relation to the 10 foot separation is. Mr. Wilson stated he must maintain the 10 foot separation between buildings. Commissioner Kelley asked can he not use that 10 foot to use as a driveway. A discussion follo wed with Mr. Wilson stating that he could not use those areas as driveways. Commissioner Holder asked if Mr. Wilson could not angle four spaces, could he install four parallel spaces and make room for the driveways to access the garages from the rear. Vice Chair Russell stated that he would have to remove a building. Mr. Wilson stated that he could put a storage unit in that area where the site plan shows a building. Commissioner Johnson does not see that much difference in the revised plan except for entry feature. Mr. Wilson thinks it will read as one building. Commissioner Johnson thinks the rhythm and form are the two main things she is concerned about. The placement on the lot should relate more to the historic house. The ratio of wall to window area is inappropriate in her view; the windows are too small or too few. A big concern for her is the garage door on front. Commissioner Bowen thinks a lot of the Commissioners are concerned with the garage door on the front. Commissioner Holder stated that new construction should not replicate but blend. Some obviously does not blend. The two mobile homes that have been joined together across from his house do not blend. The garage door on this application is very prominent. It looks like a storage unit. It does not read like a house. He can see the form but would like the house to have more windows. He also brought up the point that a car could park in front of the garage door. He summarized that the house did not blend. Mr. Wilson asked if it was more desirable to have a garage door or to park off street. He mentioned the ranch house and on-street parking. Commissioner Holder stated that there was nothing like this in the district in relation to parking. He continued that there should be a consideration of proximity to the park. This project does not fit or blend. The garage doors are his biggest concern. Commissioner Johnson stated that she assumed that he would change his submittals. She said that she was concerned about the location and number of porches. She would like to see two porches in relation to the form of the buildings, the entrances to the buildings. Vice Chair Russell asked if abstraction of form is read as single building. Is there an objection to having a single porch? Commissioner Johnson responded that it would depend on how it is designed. If this is it, this design is not compatible within the district. She does not see the entry feature as a porch. Mr. Wilson stated that he could submit a new design and may delete the garages. He stated that he wanted to defer these applications. Commissioner Holder stated that these may be built one at a time and that could affect the design or order in which it was built. Vice Chair Russell stated the order of construction of the applicant is not our concern. Commissioner Holder stated that it was. Page 24 of 68 Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, stated that these are two separate buildings and two applications. Maybe if the buildings were designed to be connected together in some way, they ought to be considered together. Adam Day, who worked on the project, spoke of the building being a record of our time. People will not build old Victorian structures. Jeff Horton, an architect, voiced support of the application. Chair Bowen stated that the applicant has made a request to defer the item to the next meeting. Vice Chair Russell stated in regards to Building Orientation, he had some concern with the relationship between the two applications. Some thought might be taken to shift the buildings back getting closer to 1007. On the Building Mass and Scale, some Commissioners have an issue with the vertical height to the width. He made an argument for the screen wall as it needs to be read as a singular mass. On Building Materials, the CorTen steel appears to rust, but it is a patina. It will stabilize and protect material. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer application to next meeting. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer both applications to the November 2016 hearing and Commissioner Kelley seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions. Page 25 of 68 DATE: October 10, 2016 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC ADDRESS: 1005 McMath Ave. COA REQUEST: Infill House PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11, and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This site that is under consideration for the two row houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1005 McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1003 is a separate item. This project will be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has finished their review. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897 Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings. On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A large wrap around porch faced the street corner and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the “Auto House” in the rear that fronted on the alley. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. B. Location of Project Page 26 of 68 Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the 1978 survey. It has been vacant since. 1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left) 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps Proposed elevations 1001 McMath 1003-1005 McMath 1007 McMath PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Page 27 of 68 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. 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: Page 28 of 68 Sec 23-120. – General Criteria (f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d). (d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to, the following factors within the building's area of influence: (1) Siting. (2) Height. (3) Proportion. (4) Rhythm. (5) Roof area. (6) Entrance area. (7) Wall areas. (8) Detailing. (9) Facade. (10) Scale. (11) Massing. The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction: B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. 3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used Page 29 of 68 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 30 of 68 Elevations submitted August 14, 2016 GENERAL DESIGN. It is a three story single family residence with a gable end roof. The front façade (west) is dominated by a garage door on the first floor and a large fixed window on the second and third floor. Windows on the other three facades are scattered with various sizes and shapes. The first floor is masonry; king size brick. The remainder of the front façade and the south facades are stained white oak laid horizontally. The remainders of the north and east facades are proposed to be corrugated CorTen steel wall panels. CorTen steel has a naturally oxidizing finish. Weathering steel is a group of steel alloys developed to obviate the need for painting and form a stable rust-like appearance if exposed to the weather for several years. The south facing slope of the roof is proposed to have solar panels. The roof is proposed to have standing seam CorTen steel panels. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES See below for the descriptions of the remainder of the items. Wall light fixtures are a Progress cylinder light fixture model 5675- 20/30k antique bronze LED. These are proposed on each side of the garage door and by the entry door. The light is 14” tall and 5” in diameter. SITING The house will sit 10’-0” to the south of 1001 McMath, the mixed use building. It will sit 8’-0” north of 1005. The front setback will be aligned with the existing 1001 McMath. This setback relates to 1001 McMath and does not relate to 1007 McMath. With this house, 1005, sitting much closer to the street than 1007 McMath, the south side of the structure will be much more visible from the street. Large expanses of wall with little or no windows do not blend with the district. HEIGHT According to plans, the house is 37’-4” plus 1’-4” (foundation) for a total of 38’-8” tall. The height of 1001 per the plans is 35’-2”. The law school dorms on McAlmont Street are between 32’-4’ and 37’-0” depending on which parapet is measured. The yellow house is the shortest of them all at between 30 and 31 feet tall. This would be the tallest structure in the area of significance. Proposed Light Fixture Page 31 of 68 PROPORTION The proportion of this structure reads as very tall and skinny. This is a ratio of 1 wide to 2.41 tall. This is not a typical proportion for single family houses in the district. RHYTHM The west side of the structure does have a rhythm, in the fact that there is one opening per floor and they are centered in the wall. The other facades do not have a discernable rhythm. ROOF AREA. The house features a gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. The roof will be CorTen #ss675 standing seam roof, 16” wide and 22 gauge metal. There will be a fixed vented ridgecap 7” on each slope. Some historic houses originally had metal roofs, some standing seam and some metal shingles. The CorTen steel roof will be a matte finish as the steel rusts and produces a medium to dark brown color. The roof shape and material is appropriate to the district. West elevation of building Image of Standing Seam roof Proposed Solar Panels Page 32 of 68 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. The CorTen siding is a A606-4 Western Stated/Bridger Weathering Steel, installed in a vertical orientation. It is a 22 gauge CorTen steel 7/8” corrugated in 37’ wide panels. The spacing of the corrugations is 2 2/3” wide. The south side façade will be sheathed in stained white oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally. The boards are approximately a 1” x 5”. The garage door is a Masonite door, steel flush door in 24 gauge steel and is insulated. It measures 7’ tall by 12’. This is a single garage door with no raised panels or windows. The entry door is a 36” x 80” Masonite Sta-Tru HD flush steel door with no glass. Sketch of entry area Corrugated CorTen steel siding Page 33 of 68 The side and rear facades feature two horizontal slit windows, twelve square windows, and two vertical windows, one which is ganged with a casement window under a fixed window. The ratio of solid wall to windows is atypical with so little of the walls being dedicated to windows. The windows are Anderson 100 series Awning and Casement windows in Bronze. The windows are made of Fibrex – a blend of 40 percent wood fiber by weight and 60 percent thermoplastic polymer by weight. The letter of August 14th states they will be casement and awning windows. The windows, according to the sketches, will not have interior muntins. DETAILING The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim. FAÇADE The front façade features a single garage door on the first floor with two fixed large widows on the second and third floor. The front (west) façade will be sheathed in stained white oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally. The boards are approximately a 1” x 5”. SCALE This proposed structure is unique to the district with a ratio of 1:2.41 width to height. This is not a typical width to height. Historic houses in the district are wider than this one at 16’. In the photos below, 923 McMath has a width to height of 1.5:1, 718 E 10th is more horizontal with a ratio of 1.74:1, 1007 McMath has a ratio of 1.3:1 and 712 E 11th has a ratio of 1.3:1. These numbers were generated from survey photos. All of these structures are wider than they are tall. Proposed garage door (door only, not surround or brick) Proposed Entry door Page 34 of 68 MASSING The massing of this building is taller in proportion than the rest of the buildings in the immediate area. The overall mass may be similar, but the overtly vertical nature of it does not blend with the neighborhood. If the two houses were joined by some architectural feature to emphasize the pedestrian visitor entry, the two houses might be read as one and the proportion of the width to height would be closer to a 1:1. 923 McMath 718 E 10th 1007 McMath 712 E 11th SITE DESIGN Fencing is to be pine wood and 4”x4” utility wire, picture framed with pine and attached with galvalume screws. Driveways will be 12 feet wide in concrete with apron flares at the street. The walk to entry door appears to be large concrete paver stones in concrete based on the site plan. No detail has been given. This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Entrance area, Wall areas, Scale, and Massing. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence. Page 35 of 68 The overall proportions do not blend with the district and the rhythm of the exterior walls is undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to window area is inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The scale and massing are also atypical to the neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: September 12, 2016 See discussion of 1003 McMath for general comments on this item. A motion was made to defer both items at 1003 and 1005 McMath till October 10, 2016 for further information by Vice Chair Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent (Holder) and 2 open positions. STAFF UPDATE: October 10, 2016 On September 19, 2016 Staff received an additional drawing of an entry feature. It will span the area between the two buildings and function as a gate to the entry area. It will be made of horizontal white oak boards and have a ‘roof’ overhang. See the end of the report for more detailed drawings. View from northwest View from southwest The national register historic district and local ordinance historic district is named “MacArthur Park”. The district was drawn to surround the park on all four sides and take in residential and commercial areas on all four sides of the park. This site is an important site in the district as it fronts onto MacArthur Park and is within view of National Historic Landmark Individually Listed Arsenal building. Proposed fence Page 36 of 68 The contributing structures on the street are the Law School at 1201 McMath (originally the UAMS Medical School), the house at 1007 McMath and the house at 923 McMath. In Arkansas, the out buildings are also shown as contributing as an accessory structure to the principal structure. They are not contributing in their own right. Staff inventoried the neighborhood for single family houses with garage doors on the front façade of the house - there are none. There are seven detached garages with garage doors facing the street in the district. These structures are in the rear of properties where carriage houses were originally sited. The ones that were mentioned in the presentation, The Lincoln House at 301 E 7th Street, 624 S Rock Street, 1023 Cumberland and 1003 S Scott Street were built as residential with a carriage house in the rear of the structure. All of these are on corner lots with the garage doors facing the other street. The Lincoln House (panoramic photo) The Lincoln House, an Italianate structure is shown above with the front façade facing 7th Street and the detached garage facing Cumberland Street. The detached garage is to the left in the photo behind the tree. Page 37 of 68 624 S Rock Street (panoramic photo) 624 S Rock is shown above with the front façade facing Rock Street and the detached garage facing 7th Street. The detached garage is to the right in the photo. 1003 S Scott Street front facade 1003 S Scott Street side facade The Bragg Apartments at 1003 S Scott is shown above. This building from is unique in the fact that the detached garage is located at the far back corner of the lot with the garage accessible from both street and two garage doors on two façades. This does fit the pattern in the facade that the garage is smaller in footprint area, smaller in mass and is located on a corner lot. Page 38 of 68 1023 S Cumberland front facade 1023 S Cumberland side facade 1023 S Cumberland is shown above with the front façade facing Cumberland Street and the detached garage on the right in the photos facing 11th Street. These four houses with the accompanying detached garages were a common form at the time. A larger principal structure was located at the front of the lot and a smaller, in footprint, detached garage at the rear of the property was either one or two story. The two storied examples were often used for servants’ quarters and later were used as apartments for rental income. This pattern of houses with detached garages is common in multiple historic districts in the city. This pattern is not dependent on whether an alley is present. On page 2 of this report, the Sanborn Maps show multiple accessory buildings along the alley way in the 1000 block of McMath. The detached garages were built as an accessory structures on the lot. An accessory structure is built on the same lot as the principal structure; serves the principal building; is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose. These four examples are perfect examples of accessory structures. North Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage East Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage South Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage West Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage Page 39 of 68 This structure is the detached garage at 1003 S Scott Street. This structure does have corrugated metal in a vertical orientation on the east and south side. This detached garage is to the rear of the lot on the east and on the property line on the south, has access from the both streets, and is an accessory structure. The metal siding is on the sides of the garage that is farthest away from the house and farthest from the streets. The street facing façades, the north and west façade with the garage doors has brick veneer that matches the brick of the house. The west façade, a solid wall that is closest to the house, is all brick that matches the house. Parking of cars does occur in the front setback of some structures that were built as single family houses in the district and has for some time. This is rare and the only cases that Staff knows of are the houses on the 600 block of Ferry Street. There is not an alley to the rear of these lots so parking on the street or in the front yards are the only option. At least one house does not have off street parking. There are also some apartment buildings that only have on street parking. The single family row houses that are proposed to be built have only a garage door on the front of the units. The added entry feature as shown in the revised drawings may not be built until the second unit is finished as a builder would have to work around it. The entry feature’s gate to the entry area is not very pronounced and will depend on the walkway from the public sidewalk to announce that this is the entrance to the two units. Staff inventoried the district and did not find any single family structures with front facing garages. The houses that have parking in the front yards do not have alley access. 1003 and 1005 McMath have alley access from the rear of the lots. The cover letter states that “This will be our final application in MacArthur Park Historic District for New Construction.” If that is true, then the floor plans could be modified and the garage doors could be located to the rear of the structures. In the Site Design section of the guidelines, it states that “Accommodations for automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood as possible.” Accommodations for automobiles include garage doors. Placing garage doors on the front façade of a structure does not make the unobtrusive nor the automobile parked behind it. Residential parking should be as stated on page 61 of the Guidelines: “Parking areas and garages for houses should be located in the rear of the house, with entrance from an alley or from a side driveway. Parking should not be in the front yard. Original designs, materials, and placement of driveways should be preserved. If the driveway must lead from the street through a side yard to parking in the rear, brick or concrete tracks or narrow strips are recommended, with grass or ground cover filling the median. Side or rear driveways should be gravel or smooth concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick.” The four examples of detached garages are in keeping with the guidelines since they access the garage through a side yard and the garage is in the rear of the lot. The guidelines would suggest that the floor plan be modified so that the garage doors are on the rear of the structure with access from the already paved alley. In the Guidelines on page 55, it lists four principles to follow. They are listed on page 4 and 5 of this report. 1. Building Orientation: “The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of Page 40 of 68 the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.” The form of 1001 McMath could be viewed as a corner commercial building with residential uses above which were common in Little Rock in the past. However, the other buildings in those blocks adhered to a residential setback which accentuated the commercial form on the corner. Originally there were three houses in the 1000 block of McMath as shown on the Sanborn maps that had similar front yard setbacks. 1007 McMath is the only one of the three houses which had uniform setbacks to survive. 2. Building Mass and Scale: “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” In the last hearing, the applicant stated that 1001 McMath was actually 38’-2” tall, three feet taller than the application showed. The roof on 1001 slants to the east which diminishes the mass as the viewer looks east. The houses proposed at 1003 and 1005 have a constant ridgeline of 38’-8”. These two houses will be built taller and the farther one is to the east, the more the height difference will be between the buildings. This would be the tallest structure in the area of significance. The guidelines state that “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” These individual structures do not comply with this statement. The individual houses ratios are unusually tall to their width. If the entry feature is added, and is deemed to visually combine the structures into one, the overall height to width could be more in line with other structures in the district. 3. Building Form “Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)” The house features a gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. Some historic houses originally had metal roofs, some standing seam and some metal shingles. The roof shape and material is appropriate to the district. The entrance area to each unit is to the rear of the structure. The entry feature that was proposed might serve as the entry to the two units with the contemporary porch, but the horizontal slats of wood do not differentiate the door versus the rest of the wall section. More detail will be needed to be provided to assure that this reads as a combined entry to the units. The windows in the units on three sides are random and lacking rhythm. In the photos of houses, there is a discernable rhythm in the window placement. There is also a commonality of window shapes that are rectangular in shape placed vertically on the façade. 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar Page 41 of 68 and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) The wall areas are to be either stained white oak, brick, or CorTen corrugated steel siding in a vertical orientation. Wood siding is a common material in the district. Corrugated metal siding on a wall surface is found on accessory buildings in the district. Half of 1005 and more than half of 1003 is proposed to be built out of a material that is found on accessory structures on a non- dominant façade. The standing seam roof proposed was used on several historic structures in the district. The garage door and entry doors into the units are flush with no glass inserts and no raised panels. The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim. This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Rhythm, Entrance area, and Wall areas. The added submittal of the entry feature may affect the Proportion, Scale, or Massing of the structure. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence. The rhythm of the exterior walls on the east, north and south sides are undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to window area is inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The scale and massing are also atypical to the neighborhood. The ordinance states in Section 23-120 (f): “Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence.” With the above listed concerns, the proposed structure is not appropriate for the district. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2016 See discussion of 1003 McMath for general comments on this item. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer application to next meeting. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer both applications to the November 2016 hearing and Commissioner Kelley seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions. Page 42 of 68 DATE: October 10, 2016 APPLICANT: Deanna Jones ADDRESS: 320 E 15th Street COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 320 E 15th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 7A, Block 49, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built in 2010. The house is considered a "Non-Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for a fence in the front yard and to extend the fence in the side yard. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 12, 2009, a COA was approved and issued to Page Wilson for the construction of a single Family house. On May 11, 2009, the Commission denied a COA for a single-story and a two-story house on Lot 7. On November 13, 2006, a COA was approved a issued to Page Wilson for the construction of a five-plex residential building. On January 7, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Raymond Rogers for demolition of a four-plex structure that was severely damaged by the 1999 tornado. Several other structures in the 1300-1500 blocks of Rock Street were demolished around that time because of severe damage by the 1999 tornado. On August 5, 1999, a COA was denied to Raymond Rogers to enclose the front of the building. 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 43 of 68 Existing south elevation of house Existing southeast view of house with fence Existing southwest view of house with fence Proposed fence location PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The city code states the following on residential fences: Sec. 36-516(e)(1)a Residential fence and wall standards of the Little Rock Municipal Code states: Between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way, the maximum height shall be four (4) feet. Other fences may be erected to a maximum height of six (6) feet. Subsection (7) states: Support columns or support posts shall be permitted to exceed the allowable fence or wall height by no more than two (2) feet, including any ornamental features. Support columns or support posts shall be a maximum width of two (2) feet. There shall be a minimum distance of seven-feet – six inches (7’-6”) between opposing faces of support columns or support posts which exceed the allowable fence or wall height, other than at gates or corners. The guidelines on page 58 state the following: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36” Rear yard fencing—72” Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and Page 44 of 68 maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the building. For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the scale of the building and grounds. Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may be 72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure. Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. The proposal is to continue the fencing that is already on the site to enclose the front yard and the rest of the side yards at the house. This fencing style, built with pine boards and posts, is appropriate to the style and period of the building. There will be a gate at the front walk and one at the parking pad at the rear. No details of the gate design was provided. This would be the first house in the area of influence to have a front yard fence. The East Side Auditorium apartments have a fence along Cumberland on their side yard property line to screen the air conditioner units. It is 36” tall. There is also a fence between 1421 Cumberland and 1415/1417 Cumberland that is perpendicular to the sidewalk and it appears to be less than 36” tall. The guidelines speak of taller fence heights for larger scale properties. This is not a larger scale property. The guidelines also speak of privacy fences, up to six foot tall, being in the rear yards and starting halfway back on the house. This additional height is one foot over the recommended height for front yard fences. Staff cannot support a fence 48” tall. Existing fence in rear yard. Detail of existing fence. Page 45 of 68 Photos of other fences in the area of influence. Fence between 1418 Rock and 324 E 15th Fence between 1418 Rock and 1414 Rock Fence between 1410 Rock and 1400 Rock NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one phone call of a neutral nature regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. All fencing between 15th street and a line parallel to 15th Street at the front façade of the house shall be 36” tall maximum. Fences in other areas of the property may be up to 72” in height. COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked for a clarification of the recommendation of the six foot tall fences. Mr. Minyard explained that part of the existing fence already goes to that height in the rear and side of the house. Deanna Jones, the applicant, stated that she has lived there since 2010 and she loves her neighborhood. She has a dog that would benefit from the fence. She thinks that three feet is difficult with dogs and believes that four feet is a good compromise. She does not think that it will detract from the neighborhood. She asked the Commission to support the four foot fence. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if it was not approved, would she still do the fence. Ms. Jones replied that she would install the fence, but that the dog stands over 36 inches tall. She mentioned other fences in the area at Daisy Bates and Scott Street, both at Patrick Cowan’s House and the East Side Lofts. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated the fence is not solid. Ms. Jones stated it would match the existing fence. Chair BJ Bowen asked if it was only 36 inches, would she still build the fence. He mentioned that they do have electronic collars that will contain the dog in the area. Ms. Jones stated that she would have to sleep on the idea of a 36 inch fence; future owners may have bigger dogs. Commissioner Johnson spoke of the transparency of the proposed fence and the difference between different fences that the applicant mentioned. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked if the Cowan fence was still in litigation. Mr. Minyard stated that it was approved by this Commission and that it is located in the overlap area between this commission and the Capitol Zoning District Commission. Mr. Minyard responded that the East Side lofts were approved by the Page 46 of 68 Commission partially because it is a large lot and different scale. The Cowan’s fence is still in court. Vice Chair Russell asked if there was room for a compromise of 42”. Ms. Jones formally amended her application to a 42 inch tall fence. Page Wilson, neighbor to the applicant, spoke in favor of the fence. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the fence as amended to a 42” tall fence with the condition of obtaining a building permit. Commissioner Kelley seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions. Page 47 of 68 DATE: October 10, 2016 APPLICANT: Tommy Lasiter and Ryan Lasiter ADDRESS: 1300 S Scott Street COA REQUEST: Infill Apartments PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1300 S Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 7-12, Block 14, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." These six lots are currently vacant. This application is for a 35 unit apartment complex composed of two buildings with parking to the rear of the buildings. The building will feature mansard roofs that will house the third floor units. This project is in the overlap area that is reviewed both by this Commission and the Capitol Zoning District Commission (CZDC). In meetings with the applicant, CZDC and HDC Staff, it was decided that the applicant would file for CZDC first, go through its two committees, have the public hearing at the HDC and then have the final hearing at the CZDC. This item was on the September 20, 2016 agenda and was deferred. The two CZDC committees voted to recommend approval. The vote and minutes of the HDC will be forwarded to the CZDC for their agenda. The project will be up for a vote on October 20, 2016 at CZDC. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On July 10, 1997, a COA was approved and issued to the Arkansas Association of Nigerians to build a community center on the middle two lots. In October 1991, a COA was issued to demolish the Urbana Apartments that were located on the north half of this property. 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 48 of 68 Photo from 13th and Scott Streets Photo from Daisy Bates and Scott Streets Photo of fish Factory at 1200 Scott Photo of Villa Marre at 1321 Scott Photo of Rozelle Murphy House at 1301 Scott Photo of Garland Mitchell House at 1404 Scott The Sanborn insurance maps shown below depict four houses on this site by the late 1880’s. The northern three were two story homes. Over time, homes were either converted into apartments, demolished or moved and reoriented as may have been the case of the home next to the Scott Street M. E. Church. All of the buildings were demolished by 1991 based on aerial photos. 1889 Sanborn Map 1913 Sanborn Map 1950 Sanborn Map Page 49 of 68 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Perspective view of Scott Street Elevation This application is for a 35 unit apartment complex composed of two buildings with parking to the rear of the buildings. It will feature mansard roofs that will house the third floor units. The building will feature individual entries to the ground floor units facing the streets with individual porches for each unit. Parking will be to the west of the building off the alley. Some parking will be within a fenced area, some will not. 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. Page 50 of 68 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 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) Urbana Apartments (demolished in 1991) (Photo courtesy CZDC) Page 51 of 68 …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. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) Page 52 of 68 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 The Guidelines state on page 63 concerning signs: Signs should be subordinate to the architecture and overall character throughout the district. Historic signs should be preserved, including “ghost” signs on the sides of buildings. 1. Attached to Building: Signs attached to a building should not cover or obscure architectural features. Signs may be painted on windows, doors, or small panels at entrances or on awnings. Small signs may be flush-mounted on a building wall; may be hung on porches between posts; or may project from the structure. A sign on a masonry wall should be mounted in the mortar, not the masonry. 2. Free-Standing: Free-standing signs should be low, small, and constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish. The recommended size should not exceed six square feet in area. These signs should be located in landscaped areas. All ground mounted (free standing) signs in the UU zoning district must be approved by the Board of Adjustment in addition to the Historic District Commission. Examples of appropriate signs are illustrated to the right. For signs in the R4-A district, please consult Staff for further information. 3. Materials for signs: Materials used for signs should be traditional, such as finished wood, glass, copper, or bronze, not plywood, plastic, unfinished wood, neon or other internally lighted materials, or flashing lights. Materials should be compatible with the building materials. Page 53 of 68 4. Design of signs: The design of the signs should be appropriate to the building, in size, lettering, and style. Business logos or symbols are desirable. If several businesses share a building, coordinate the signs. Flashing, rotating, moveable, or portable signs should not be used. 5. Lighting of signs: Lighting of signs should be from remote sources, preferably from the ground aimed directly at the sign and shielded from street view. Lighting should not use visible bulbs, internal sources or luminous paint. ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of the building is a nod to the Villa Marre and Second Empire style. The Second Empire style was prevalent in the United States between 1860 and 1880. Second Empire style is characterized by the mansard roof and to a lesser degree iron cresting above the upper cornice. This style house was not common in Little Rock. The Villa Marre across the street at 1321 Scott and the Packet House (McDonald-W ait-Newton House) at 1420 Cantrell are two most notable examples. GENERAL DESIGN The units are split into two buildings; both “L” shaped fronting the street with parking behind. They are two stories with the third floor behind the mansard roof. Units on the first floor will feature individual porches and exterior entry doors with sidewalks to the street. The facades facing 13th Street and Daisy Bates Drive are all brick on both floors. The Scott street elevations have alternating brick and HardiePlank lap siding to simulate row houses. The porches are a combination of hip and shed roofs. Part of the south building facing Daisy Bates Drive is two stories. Scott Street Elevations 13th Street Elevation Daisy Bates Drive Elevation with two story portion on the left 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 Page 54 of 68 SITING The buildings will have a 25’ setback from 13th Street and Daisy Bates Drive. Referencing the Contribution and Non-Contributing map on page 17 of this report, the setbacks from Daisy Bates and from 13th street are similar to the setbacks of the Villa Marre and the Rozelle Murphy House. There will be a 14’ setback from Scott Street. The parking will be off the alley with no addition curb cuts on the streets. There will be an entrance to the center of the complex mid - block on Scott Street. That entry between the two buildings could be utilized by guests visiting tenants on the second and third floors since the public stairs are to the rear of the buildings. HEIGHT The floor to ceiling height will be 11’ floor to floor and a maximum of 16” from grade to the first floor. A total height of 35’-10” to the roof/coping trim is anticipated. Staff referenced the PAgis website for topographical elevations of the existing structures. Those heights of the roofs above sea level are in parentheses in the text below. The Villa Marre (354) and the Rozelle Murphy House (354) across Scott Street are one and one half story houses. The Garland Mitchell House (356) at 1404 Scott is a two story with a shallow pitched roof. The Fish Factory (341) at 1200 Scott is a one story commercial building. The East Side School apartments building (374) is three stories. The convenience store (329) outside of the district at Main and Daisy Bates is also a one story building. Buildings in the 1300 block of Main Street (varies up to 342) has one and two story commercial buildings. According to the PAgis website, the bare ground on the project site is around 316. With the height of the proposed building at 36’, that would make it at 352 elevation which is in the middle of the existing heights in the area. This calculation does not include the 3 foot fence screening of the HVAC condenser units that will be located on the roof. PROPORTION The proportion of the building on the Scott Street façade is 3 wide to 1 tall. On the other streets, it is a 2.77 wide to 1 tall. These proportions are wider than the structures built as residential across the street, but not as wide as some in the area. The difference of brick and siding on the Scott Street elevations do give a more vertical appearance if they are viewed as row houses. RHYTHM The buildings have a rhythm of windows, doors and porches that is discernable and predictable. ROOF AREA Roof: The bottom slope of the mansard roof is a 7:1 pitch. The roofing material on the bottom slope of the mansard roof will be CertainTeed Cedar Impressions, Double 7 straight edge perfection shingles. They are a polymer resin product. The flat portion of the roof will be a TPO with 1/4” per foot minimum slope. The walls of the units are staggered, therefore the roof will also be staggered and more complex, not one continuous line. The roofs on the porches are hipped or shed roofs are covered in Slatemaster shingles. Satellite Dishes: None are planned at the time. If Mansard Roof shingle Page 55 of 68 future tenants want one, they will be installed on the roof behind the fencing. ENTRANCE AREA The steps to the house will be broom finished concrete and the railing will be the Fypon Quick Rail system. The porches will be approximately 16” off the ground. Some of the porches will feature low brick walls and some brick plinths to support the columns. The columns are paired and will feature brackets to visually connect the columns to the porch headers. See Porch Bracket under Detailing below. WALL AREAS Foundation: The foundation will be 8”x8” Endicott Brick, Artisan texture. Walls: Portions of the exterior walls are pushed back and pulled forward to break up the mass of the building. Some have a 4 foot difference and some are 6 foot. The walls will be either brick veneer or painted HardiePlank lap siding with 4” Hardie Trim at the corners. The elevations show the HardiePlank lap siding 13th installed horizontally. The majority of the walls on the west façade will be HardiePlank. Two types of face brick are noted. The façade on 13 th Street will be a different brick from that on Daisy Bates Drive. There are large expanses of wall areas in the areas of the stairwells, electrical and storage closets that do not have windows or other architectural features that break the plane of the HardiePlank siding. These are on the rear of the building but will be visible from 13th Street and from Main Street. West Elevations Railing Detail Elevation Detail of Steps and railing Page 56 of 68 The dimension of the width of the HardiePlank was not specified nor was the texture. The trim boards around doors and windows, particularly abutting the HardiePlank was not specified either. Windows: Windows are to be a vinyl casement window from Comfort View Product, Legend Series 1500. The predominant size is 2’-8” x 6’-0” in single and ganged configurations as shown on the elevations. The muntin pattern is shown as 2x5. The applicant should consider adding windows or other architectural elements to break up the west walls in areas shown by red arrows below. Blank walls are not typical in a historic district. Doors: Exterior doors are to be a Premium Woodgrain Fiberglass door in a n oak texture finish. The door will feature two inset panels and no glass. The electrical and storage room doors will be a flush painted door, not paneled. Lighting: Lighting under the porches will be PLC Lighting Dorato 9.75in Bronze wall sconce. Wall mounted security lights and the pole mounted parking lot lights are of the same series; Cree LED lights, EW7L series. The acorn top lights in the handouts will be placed in the public right of way and are not part of the Commissions review. The location of the pole mounted lights are shown in a plan at the end of the staff report. Areas of blank walls where windows or other architectural interest should be added. Page 57 of 68 Gutters: No gutters are planned at this time. DETAILING On the first floor porches, decorative brackets will be used. They are from Worthington Millwork are made of polyurethane. The breakpoints between the two different slopes of the roofs will feature a 24 gauge metal coping cornice. The soffit of the toe of the roof will also feature an exaggerated coping/cornice. The paired columns are also a detail that will be different than other multifamily developments in the recent past. FAÇADE The front façade, as determined by CZDC, is either 13th Street or Daisy Bates Drive. Those facades are all brick with the mansard roof covering the third floor. The façade facing Daisy Bates Drive has a two story portion at the western edge. The Garland Mitchell House is wood lap siding while the Rozelle Murphy, the Villa Marre and the Fish Factory are brick. The convenience store is concrete block. The façade features a center porch and two corner porches. The center unit sets back from the others in an effort to break up the mass of the wall. SCALE The scale of the building as to height is comparable with the other buildings in the area. The foot print of the building will be larger than the buildings built as single family, but smaller than the school and auditorium to the southeast and smaller than the Fish Factory to the north. The proportion of the building is wider than it is tall, which again is in between the larger and smaller buildings in the area. District wide, these two buildings will not be the largest nor the tallest. Historically, the district has three story residential buildings and some new construction that is three stories. MASSING The massing of the building will seem to be larger than it is since the buildings are “L” shapes with the legs of the buildings fronting the streets as opposed to if they were the opposite and created an open area at the intersection. The mansard roof can bring the overall perceived massing down with the third floor being behind the roof. Site Design Lighting: See lighting above for parking lot lighting fixtures. Sconce under porches Pole mounted parking lot lights Wall mounted security lights Porch Bracket Page 58 of 68 Mechanical Systems: The compressors for the HVAC units will be located on the top of the roof, behind the 3’ high fence/widows walk railing shown on the roof. Signage: The sign specified will be a pole mounted sign 84” tall and 30” wide with the sign face to be approximately 7.25 square feet. The sign will be a powder coated metal sign located midblock off of Scott Street near the opening between the two apartment buildings. No light source was described. Dumpster: The dumpster will be located off the alley to the west. The fencing at the dumpster is the Ameristar 6’ high montage Plus Classic 2/3 rail with a solid sheet of metal behind it to screen the dumpster. Walks/Sidewalks/Drives: New sidewalks are planned in the City right of way for the entirety of the project. One section will be curved to go around an existing tree that will be preserved. Seventeen sidewalks to the building will be perpendicular to the city sidewalks and provide access to individual units or access into the complex. The driveways into the project will utilize the existing alley curb cuts. Landscaping: Foundation planting will be placed around the building as well as the parking lot landscaping required by city code. The cover letter states that no other landscape features other than steel edging are proposed to be used. A total of five trees are slated to be preserved and an additional five in the city right of way are proposed to be preserved. Fencing on site: Fencing is the Ameristar 6’ high montage Plus Classic 2/3 rail. The fencing will be in the rear of the site and enclose part of the parking lot area. A section of fence will be along Scott Street between the two buildings. The Guidelines state on page 53 that new construction should blend based on Building Orientations, Building Mass and Scale, Building Form and Building Materials. The block where this is proposed to be built is three quarters vacant. The setbacks of the buildings in the surrounding blocks and this block vary greatly. This project does attempt to define a setback that is somewhat of an average of the area. Capitol Zoning District Commission has deemed that the front and rear setbacks are on the north and south and the side yard setbacks are on Scott and the alley sides. With that said, the smaller of the setbacks are shown on Scott Street and the larger on the other streets. Staff feels that the Building Orientation is appropriate. The scale of the building as to height is comparable with the other buildings in the area. The foot print of the building will be larger than some, but smaller than others. The proportion of the building is wider than it is tall, which again is in between the larger and smaller buildings in the area. District wide, these two buildings will not be the largest nor the tallest. The massing of the building will seem to be larger than it is since the buildings are “L” shapes with the legs of the buildings fronting the streets. The mansard roof can bring the overall perceived massing Sign detail Page 59 of 68 down with the third floor being behind the roof. Staff feels that the Building Mass and Scale are appropriate. The building form of these buildings, two “L” shaped buildings are unique to this area, but not to the district (Phillips Apartments at 10th and Cumberland). The roof shape and type are consistent with the area. The Mansard roof is similar to the one at the Villa Marre at 1321 Scott Street and the Garland Mitchell house at 1404 Scott employs a low pitch roof. The use of entry doors off the street, porches, and walks, along with differences in brick and Hardiplank siding, break up the mass of the building. Floor to ceiling heights are similar to other residential uses and the porch depths are of a useable depth at 6 feet. Staff feels that the Building Form is appropriate. Brick, wood plank siding, and iron fencing have been commonly used in the district since the earliest buildings. This project proposes to use a mixture of brick and Hardiplank siding for the walls. The mansard roof will be of a faux cedar shake product which emulates real cedar shakes that were used in the past. That use has been discontinued because of fire concerns among others. The fencing is a metal fence with traditional scale pickets but in a more simplistic design. Staff feels that the Building Materials are appropriate. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 3. Obtaining a building permit. 4. Light source for signage will be ground mounted and low wattage. 5. All satellite dishes will be installed on roof behind fencing. COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. He spoke of comments from neighborhood in support to the application. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked a question of the wall detail on the west side on the graphic of the arrows on page 10. Mr. Minyard stated that the applicant should look at that before going to Capitol Zoning but the suggested changes were not part of the Staff recommendation. Tommy Lasiter, the applicant, asked if the Commission would take some citizen comments at this time. Chair BJ Bowen stated that he would. Tom Adams, architect, voiced support of the project. He has been practicing architecture since 1966 when he joined WD&D Architects. He has looked at the drawings and agrees with Staff. He believes the project is appropriate to the area. Charles Stewart, the developer of South Village apartments at 1301 S Louisiana, voiced support for the project. They will add to the area. They are continuing to revitalize this part of the city. Tommy Lasiter spoke of projects in downtown Little Rock that he has developed. He spoke of projects in the works for apartments at the Rose Building and that they have purchased the property by Edwards’s Grocery. Frank Barksdale, architect for the project, spoke of the new rendering that proposes a lighter color palette with white siding and lighter color brick. Chair BJ Bowen asked if the applicant Page 60 of 68 needed to amend his application. Mr. Minyard stated that since the Commission did not regulate color and he was keeping the brick where the brick was and the siding where the siding was, an amendment was not necessary. Commissioner Ted Holder asked about the windows that were going to be made smaller in the mansard roof area. Mr. Barksdale said that they had been reduced from three to two windows. Commissioner Holder spoke of the western wall areas and the graphic with the four red arrows and asked if they were going to break up those wall areas. Mr. Barksdale said that they had added windows to the rear of the building in the corridors since the item was at the Mansion Area advisory Committee at Capitol Zoning Commission. Commissioner Johnson stated that she appreciated that they lowered the height of the building and breaking up the building into the two pieces. She appreciated that they used the old Urbana Apartments footprints for the setbacks and felt that the applicants have paid attention to the site. Mr. Barksdale thanked the Commission for discussing the project with him. Commissioner Holder thanked him for adding trees and keeping the existing trees that could be saved. Mr. Lasiter said that he visited with neighbors and they supported the projects. He said that the Mayor has supported it. There were no citizens that wanted to speak at this time. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the project at 1300 Scott Street with Staff recommendations of obtaining a building permit, signage lighting requirements and satellite dishes. Commissioner Holder seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions. Page 61 of 68 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 62 of 68 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 63 of 68 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 64 of 68 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 65 of 68 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 wants them to be not so subjective and open ended. Staff will make typo changes to text but not substantive changes. STAFF UPDATE: October 10, 2016 QQA hosted an Open House was held at Curran Hall for guideline review. The Commission received favorable press from the event and two citizens attended. Staff updated the guidelines and corrected multiple non-substantive comments from Catherine Barrier from AHPP and from Dale Pekar a homeowner in the district. Changes were also made on formatting, type fonts, etc. Not all of the proposed changes were made from the suggested list. Some are substantive and have not been changed, either they have already been approved by the Commission or the text has not been reviewed. The most substantive thing that has been changed since the last meeting is to align the definitions in the Residential Infill section, Commercial and Mixed Use Infill section and the Glossary with the definitions in the ordinance. These two issues are outstanding and needs to be addressed before the Commission approves the changes. In section V, New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings, the comment on page 36 was that the word adjacent was used in two different ways. The majority of times the word is used as part of the phrase “adjacent buildings in the area of influence.” This could refer to buildings that are within 150 feet but not necessarily those abutting the proposed building. There are three instances that use the word “adjacent” without the phrase “in the area of influence”. In those contexts, it means the abutting building on the next parcel of land. Including the word adjacent in the phrase “adjacent buildings in the area of influence” could be construed as redundant whereas striking the word adjacent in the phrase would still relay the same meaning. Staff is proposing to strike the word adjacent when it appears in the phrase “adjacent buildings in the area of influence.” Page 66 of 68 In section V, New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings, the comment on page 36 was validity of the statement. The highlighted text in the last paragraph is: “Although the district is characterized as having a wide variety of architectural styles and building types, within each block there is a consistency of proportion and rhythm.” There are blocks of consistent two story houses (900 block of Cumberland), and there are blocks of consistent one story houses (600 block of Ferry). Then there are blocks that have only one building on them (Kramer School). However, many blocks are a hodge-podge of building heights, setbacks, etc. that would affect the proportion and rhythm. Are the guidelines stating that each block has its own rhythm, whether regular or irregular? Staff proposes to change the text to read: “The district is characterized by having a wide variety of architectural styles and building types, within each block having varying degrees of consistency of proportion and rhythm.” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: October 10, 2016 Staff recommends approval of the guidelines as presented in the October 5, 2016 version. COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2016 Brian Minyard made a brief presentation to the Commission. The draft they were sent and the draft online includes the corrections of Catherine Barrier of AHPP; Dale Pekar, homeowner; and from the City Attorney’s office Debra Weldon. Some of the substantive changes have not been made and those need to be discussed by the Commission tonight; for example, the deletion of the photos of Recent Approved Infill Construction photos. A major addition was that on the infi ll sections, the definitions as stated by the ordinance were incorporated into the eleven design factors descriptions. Where it says X means this, that is the ordinance definition. Where is says X refers to that, that is the text that was in the last draft. Definitions in the ordinance were also incorporated into the glossary. There are two things on page five and six that need to be discussed. If the commission votes on the item tonight, you will be voting on the version that is online, with the two changes that you discuss tonight on page 5 and 6, and small changes that are in Dale Pekar’s email. It will also include an small minor changes, typos, that were found by Commissioner Ted Holder. One of the items was the word adjacent. Mr. Minyard spoke of the proposed changes. He also spoke of the ‘consistency of proportion and rhythm’ comment. Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, asked if the disclaimer from AHPP was included since the project included federal funds. Mr. Minyard stated it was on page three. Vice chair Jeremiah Russell stated that he agreed with Catherine Barrier’s comments on both issues. Commissioner Dick Kelley agreed. There was a discussion to remove the word mimic from the infill section. The earlier discussion to remove mimic will be applied to all instances of that word. Mr. Minyard will add a figure list (photos, graphics, etc.,) to the document. Frank Barksdale encouraged the Commission to look at building height and the differences in building code versus the guidelines. This could help designers with the height issue. There was a discussion on height of buildings without changing the document. Page 67 of 68 Jonathan Opitz stated that dictating height will dictate the style of roofs. This will encourage more flat roofs for maximizing the space. Mr. Minyard stated what the Commission would be voting on if they approved the Guidelines tonight. They would be approving the version that is on the internet now as presented with the new Infill Section, changed you made tonight on pages five and six of the staff report, edits for typos through the document suggested by Catherine Barrier, some of the edits by Dale Pekar, adding a figure list at the front of the document, and any future typographical edits proposed by Commissioner Ted Holder. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to approve the item as stated by Mr. Minyard with the exception of changes proposed by Dale Pekar on page 41. Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded. There was a small discussion on not accepting the addition of the word ‘and’ to the text. The images of infill construction are staying. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions. Chair Bowen thanked the citizens for staying to make comments and the Commissioners and Staff for the hard work put into the revision of the Guidelines. Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff continues to work on the issue at 401 E Capitol. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was emailed to the Commission earlier. The spreadsheet also has the COAs, so the commissioners see both. 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 8:05 p.m. rich i��ell� Date I [- I Y, 20(6 Date Page 68 of 68