Loading...
HDC_11 14 2016Page 1 of 66 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, November 14, 2016, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Toni Johnson Dick Kelley Ted Holder Members Absent: 2 Open Positions City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Ralph Wilcox Rob Mawson John Tess Andre Blakley Rodney Forte Dana Arnette Stacy Hurst Ted Dickey Approval of Minutes A motion was made to approve the minutes of the October 10, 2016 meeting as submitted was made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Dick Kelley. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Staff informed the Commission that the applicants on two of the COAs on the agenda have requested the items be deferred to the December 2016 meeting. The other Applicant did not do the notices correctly for the COA, so all three are being recommended for deferral. Amending the agenda would allow those in attendance to leave earlier. There was a motion to amend the agenda to move the COAs to the top of the agenda by Commissioner Ted Holder. It was seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. There was not a Staff presentation on any of the items. See the individual items for the vote counts. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Page 2 of 66 DATE: November 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 311 E 8th Street REQUEST: Nomination of the Cumberland Towers to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 311 E 8th Street. The property’s legal description is “All of Block 43, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. IV-A. Location of Cumberland Towers Page 3 of 66 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is Page 4 of 66 filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Cumberland Towers to the National Register. The nomination states: “Cumberland Towers was constructed in 1973-1974 as public housing built specifically for the elderly by the Little Rock Housing Authority (LRHA). The property is locally significant under Criterion A for POLITICS/GOVERNMENT. Specifically, Cumberland Towers, along with Parris and Powell Towers, was developed directly in response to a shift in federal policy for public housing for families to targeting senior citizens. This policy shift dates to the Housing Act of 1956, which gave funding priority to senior housing construction and resulted in the first federally-funded senior housing projects in the country. Prototypical design adhered to Corbusier’s “Tower in the Park” concept with efficiencies and one-bedroom units stacked in a single high-rise building surrounded by a larger green space. These projects were typically located in residential areas at the perimeter of downtowns. Social programs and services were integral to the senior housing projects. This policy shift began with the Eisenhower administration with the passage of the Housing Act of 1956. Upon election, the Kennedy Administration redoubled efforts with the passage of the Housing Act of 1961. The combination of the housing acts resulted in a significant boost in federal funding for affordable senior housing. The policy was further developed during the Johnson Administration as part of his Great Society platform. The overall trend resulted in several hundred senior housing Page 5 of 66 projects around the country. The trend ended in 1973 when the Nixon Administration placed a moratorium on new construction and shifted federal policy to replace publically - constructed and managed housing projects to a public housing voucher system. Cumberland, along with Parris and Powell, are the only examples of this historic context in Little Rock.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A which is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that there was a combined presentation by the consultant for all three residential towers: Cumberland Tower, Parris Towers and Powell Towers. He continued that Staff had recommended inclusion of all three onto the National Register of Historic Places. Each building will require a separate vote. Rob Mawson, of Heritage Consulting Group, introduced Ted Dickey of the Gorman and Company and Rodney Forte of the Metropolitan Housing Alliance. Mr. Mawson then made the presentation based on the PowerPoint speaking of the $55 million renovation budget and the $11 million federal tax credit potential. These towers are a unique event from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s to create funding for public elderly housing. The towers can be locally significant. He stated that the 50 year rule was for guidance. The question is if enough time has passed to understand the context on which the buildings are built or it is a passing fancy. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked him to explain the public private partnership. Mr. Mawson stated that the towers were in need of renovation and that funding is limited. The Metropolitan Housing Alliance had reached out to Gorman Developers to come up with a plan to keep these buildings in public housing while upgrading them. Chair BJ Bowen asked how the towers had to be upgraded. Mr. Andre Blakley stated they had completed other projects across the country. They plan to improve the interiors and interiors of buildings as well as implementing agricultural programs and fitness programs like walking paths. They will leverage public and private capital. Rodney Forte stated that Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had recently changed guidelines and created the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program. This allows local housing authorities to incur debt. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that her largest pause was under Criterion G, less than 50 years. How often have we had one approved under Criterion G? Mr. Ralph Wilcox stated that there were three under Criterion G, and some were not. He does not know what the Park Service will do on these applications. Commissioner Johnson asked for details on the three that were approved. Mr. Wilcox stated that they were Thorncrown Chapel in Eureka Springs, the Pine Bluff Civic Center, and the Williams Building in Pine Bluff which has since been demolished. She asked if these were nationally or locally significant. Mr. Wilcox stated Page 6 of 66 Thorncrown Chapel was of national significance, and the two in Pine Bluff were of statewide significance. Rob Mawson referenced a project in Phoenix called Colefelt, an office tower in New Orleans, both in Criterion A and G with local significance. In his experience, Parks Service is thoughtful but not opposed. This event stated 70 years ago, but the funding only stated 50 years ago. John Tess stated that the firm had completed 315 national register nominations. He spoke of taking properties and putting them back into use. These have represented a national trend and the renovations will continue the residential use of the buildings. Mr. Blakey stated that this was a window of opportunity to change – a private affordable housing project. This is a different model that will act like market rate housing that will have cash on hand. Stacy Hurst, Director of Arkansas Heritage, stated that moving forward did not give her pause. The history and significance are there in these buildings and this was a chance to redo the buildings. Brian Minyard stated that he did receive one phone call in opposition to the nominations solely of the age. There were two letters received in support of the applications, one from the City Manager and one from Fennell Purifoy, Architects. He also took the opportunity to inform the audience that any exterior changes to Cumberland Towers or Parris Towers would need to be approved by either this Commission or the Capitol Zoning District Commission. Additional hearings may be needed. Vice Chair Russell asked staff to clarify what the criteria was to recommend support of the nomination: the future of the project or the basis of the merit of Criterion A and G. Mr. Minyard stated that it should be on Criterion A and G alone. The redevelopment, tax credits, use, public private partnerships are not to be considered. This Commission is a recommending body to the State Review Board that will meet on December 7, 2016. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, said that the motions should be in a form of a recommendation to approve A motion to recommend approving the nomination of Cumberland Towers under Criterion A and G was made by vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Dick Kelley. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Page 7 of 66 DATE: November 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 1800 Broadway REQUEST: Nomination of the Parris Towers to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1800 Broadway. The property’s legal description is “Lots 1-14 Block 1 Fulton’s Addition and Lots 16-18 Block 204 Kimball and Bay Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. IV-B. Location of Parris Towers Page 8 of 66 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Go vernments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is Page 9 of 66 filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Parris Towers to the National Register. The nomination states: “Fred W. Parris Towers was constructed in 1971-1972 as public housing built specifically for the elderly by the Little Rock Housing Authority (LRHA). The property is locally significant under Criterion A for POLITICS/ GOVERNMENT. Specifically, Parris Tower, along with Cumberland and Powell Towers, was developed directly in response to a shift in federal policy for public housing to targeting senior citizens. This policy shift dates to the Housing Act of 1956, which gave funding priority to senior housing in public housing construction and resulted in the first federally-funded senior housing projects in the country. Prototypical design adhered to Corbusier’s “Tower in the Park” concept with efficiencies and one-bedroom units stacked in a single high-rise building surrounded by a larger green space. These projects were typically located in residential areas at t he perimeter of downtowns. Integral to the concepts were associated social programs and services. Despite best efforts, progress in the Eisenhower Administration was slow. Upon election, the Kennedy Administration redoubled efforts; the passage of the Housing Act of 1961 resulted in a significant boost in federal funding for affordable senior housing. The policy then blossomed with the largess of President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society, though the allocation of federal funding often resulted in a protracted development process. The overall trend resulted in several hundred senior Page 10 of 66 housing projects around the country. The trend ended in 1973 when the Nixon Administration placed a moratorium on new construction and shifted federal policy to public housing vouchers. Parris, along with Cumberland and Powell, are the only examples of this historic context in Little Rock.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A which is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that there was a combined presentation by the consultant for all three residential towers: Cumberland Tower, Parris Towers and Powell Towers. He continued that Staff had recommended inclusion of all three onto the National Register of Historic Places. Each building will require a separate vote. Rob Mawson, of Heritage Consulting Group, introduced Ted Dickey of the Gorman and Company and Rodney Forte of the Metropolitan Housing Alliance. Mr. Mawson then made the presentation based on the PowerPoint speaking of the $55 million renovation budget and the $11 million federal tax credit potential. These towers are a unique event from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s to create funding for public elderly housing. The towers can be locally significant. He stated that the 50 year rule was for guidance. The question is if enough time has passed to understand the context on which the buildings are built or it is a passing fancy. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked him to explain the public private partnership. Mr. Mawson stated that the towers were in need of renovation and that funding is limited. The Metropolitan Housing Alliance had reached out to Gorman Developers to come up with a plan to keep these buildings in public housing while upgrading them. Chair BJ Bowen asked how the towers had to be upgraded. Mr. Andre Blakley stated they had completed other projects across the country. They plan to improve the interiors and interiors of buildings as well as implementing agricultural programs and fitness programs like walking paths. They will leverage public and private capital. Rodney Forte stated that Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had recently changed guidelines and created the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program. This allows local housing authorities to incur debt. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that her largest pause was under Criterion G, less than 50 years. How often have we had one approved under Criterion G? Mr. Ralph Wilcox stated that there were three under Criterion G, and some were not. He does not know what the Park Service will do on these applications. Commissioner Johnson asked for details on the three that were approved. Mr. Wilcox stated that they were Thorncrown Chapel in Eureka Springs, the Pine Bluff Civic Center, and the Williams Building in Pine Bluff which has since been demolished. She asked if these were nationally or locally significant. Mr. Wilcox stated Thorncrown Chapel was of national significance, and the two in Pine Bluff were of statewide significance. Page 11 of 66 Rob Mawson referenced a project in Phoenix called Colefelt, an office tower in New Orleans, both in Criterion A and G with local significance. In his experience, Parks Service is thoughtful but not opposed. This event stated 70 years ago, but the funding only stated 50 years ago. John Tess stated that the firm had completed 315 national register nominations. He spoke of taking properties and putting them back into use. These have represented a national trend and the renovations will continue the residential use of the buildings. Mr. Blakey stated that this was a window of opportunity to change – a private affordable housing project. This is a different model that will act like market rate housing that will have cash on hand. Stacy Hurst, Director of Arkansas Heritage, stated that moving forward did not give her pause. The history and significance are there in these buildings and this was a chance to redo the buildings. Brian Minyard stated that he did receive one phone call in opposition to the nominations solely of the age. There were two letters received in support of the applications, one from the City Manager and one from Fennell Purifoy, Architects. He also took the opportunity to inform the audience that any exterior changes to Cumberland Towers or Parris Towers would need to be approved by either this Commission or the Capitol Zoning District Commission. Additional hearings may be needed. Vice Chair Russell asked staff to clarify what the criteria was to recommend support of the nomination: the future of the project or the basis of the merit of Criterion A and G. Mr. Minyard stated that it should be on Criterion A and G alone. The redevelopment, tax credits, use, public private partnerships are not to be considered. This Commission is a recommending body to the State Review Board that will meet on December 7, 2016. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, said that the motions should be in a form of a recommendation to approve A motion to recommend approving the nomination of Parris Towers under Criterion A and G was made by vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Dick Kelley. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Page 12 of 66 DATE: November 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 1010 Wolfe Street REQUEST: Nomination of the Powell Towers to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1010 Wolfe Street. The property’s legal description is “All of Block 13, Marshall and Wolfe’s Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. IV-C. Location of Jesse Powell Towers Page 13 of 66 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governmen ts”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is Page 14 of 66 filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along w ith the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Powell Towers to the National Register. The nomination states: “Jesse Powell Towers was constructed in 1974-1975 as public housing built specifically for the elderly by the Little Rock Housing Authority (LRHA). The property is locally significant under Criterion A for POLITICS/GOVERNMENT. Specifically, Powell Towers, along with Parris and Cumberland Towers, was developed directly in response to a shift in federal policy for public housing for families to targeting senior citizens. This policy shift dates to the Housing Act of 1956, which gave funding priority to senior housing construction and resulted in the first federally-funded senior housing projects in the country. Prototypical design adhered to Corbusier’s “Tower in the Park” concept with efficiencies and one-bedroom units stacked in a single high rise building surrounded by a larger green space. These projects were typically located in residential areas at the perimeter of downtowns. Social programs and services were integral to the senior housing project. This policy shift began with the Eisenhower administration with the passage of the Housing Act of 1956. Upon election, the Kennedy Administration redoubled efforts with the passage of the Housing Act of 1961. The combination of the housing acts resulted in a significant boost in federal funding for affordable senior housing. The policy was further developed during the Johnson Administration as part of his Great Society platform. The overall trend resulted in several hundred senior housing Page 15 of 66 projects around the country. The trend ended in 1973 when the Nixon Administration placed a moratorium on new construction and shifted federal policy to replace publically - constructed and managed housing projects to a public housing voucher system. Powell, along with Parris and Cumberland, are the only examples of this historic housing trend in Little Rock.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A which is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that there was a combined presentation by the consultant for all three residential towers: Cumberland Tower, Parris Towers and Powell Towers. He continued that Staff had recommended inclusion of all three onto the National Register of Historic Places. Each building will require a separate vote. Rob Mawson, of Heritage Consulting Group, introduced Ted Dickey of the Gorman and Company and Rodney Forte of the Metropolitan Housing Alliance. Mr. Mawson then made the presentation based on the PowerPoint speaking of the $55 million renovation budget and the $11 million federal tax credit potential. These towers are a unique event from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s to create funding for public elderly housing. The towers can be locally significant. He stated that the 50 year rule was for guidance. The question is if enough time has passed to understand the context on which the buildings are built or it is a passing fancy. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked him to explain the public private partnership. Mr. Mawson stated that the towers were in need of renovation and that funding is limited. The Metropolitan Housing Alliance had reached out to Gorman Developers to come up with a plan to keep these buildings in public housing while upgrading them. Chair BJ Bowen asked how the towers had to be upgraded. Mr. Andre Blakley stated they had completed other projects across the country. They plan to improve the interiors and interiors of buildings as well as implementing agricultural programs and fitness programs like walking paths. They will leverage public and private capital. Rodney Forte stated that Housing and Urban Development (HUD) had recently changed guidelines and created the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program. This allows local housing authorities to incur debt. Commissioner Toni Johnson stated that her largest pause was under Criterion G, less than 50 years. How often have we had one approved under Criterion G? Mr. Ralph Wilcox stated that there were three under Criterion G, and some were not. He does not know what the Park Service will do on these applications. Commissioner Johnson asked for details on the three that were approved. Mr. Wilcox stated that they were Thorncrown Chapel in Eureka Springs, the Pine Bluff Civic Center, and the Williams Building in Pine Bluff which has since been demolished. She asked if these were nationally or locally significant. Mr. Wilcox stated Thorncrown Chapel was of national significance, and the two in Pine Bluff were of statewide significance. Page 16 of 66 Rob Mawson referenced a project in Phoenix called Colefelt, an office tower in New Orleans, both in Criterion A and G with local significance. In his experience, Parks Service is thoughtful but not opposed. This event stated 70 years ago, but the funding only stated 50 years ago. John Tess stated that the firm had completed 315 national register nominations. He spoke of taking properties and putting them back into use. These have represented a national trend and the renovations will continue the residential use of the buildings. Mr. Blakey stated that this was a window of opportunity to change – a private affordable housing project. This is a different model that will act like market rate housing that will have cash on hand. Stacy Hurst, Director of Arkansas Heritage, stated that moving forward did not give her pause. The history and significance are there in these buildings and this was a chance to redo the buildings. Brian Minyard stated that he did receive one phone call in opposition to the nominations solely of the age. There were two letters received in support of the applications, one from the City Manager and one from Fennell Purifoy, Architects. He also took the opportunity to inform the audience that any exterior changes to Cumberland Towers or Parris Towers would need to be approved by either this Commission or the Capitol Zoning District Commission. Additional hearings may be needed. Vice Chair Russell asked staff to clarify what the criteria was to recommend support of the nomination: the future of the project or the basis of the merit of Criterion A and G. Mr. Minyard stated that it should be on Criterion A and G alone. The redevelopment, tax credits, use, public private partnerships are not to be considered. This Commission is a recommending body to the State Review Board that will meet on December 7, 2016. Debra Weldon, City Attorney, said that the motions should be in a form of a recommendation to approve A motion to recommend approving the nomination of Powell Towers under Criterion A and G was made by vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Ted Holder. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Page 17 of 66 DATE: November 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 1217 W 3rd Street REQUEST: Nomination of the Homard House to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1217 W 3rd Street. The property’s legal description is the “E1/2 OF Lots 1, 2 & 3 & THE W35' OF Lots 10, 11, & 12 BLOCK 302 of the original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. IV-D. Location of Homard House Page 18 of 66 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Page 19 of 66 Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Homard House to the National Register. The nomination states” “The Isaac Homard House, which was constructed in 1905, is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C with local significance as an excellent example of the Neo-Classical style. The two-story house with prominent two- story front porch supported by four two-story, fluted, wood columns and decorative pediment is situated on an elevated lot above a busy traffic corridor through Little Rock. The Homard House is an imposing Neo-Classical style presence in an area which has transitioned from largely residential to commercial.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C with Local Significance. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. Page 20 of 66 COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff made a brief presentation on the nomination. Ralph Wilcox, AHPP, is in the audience if there are any questions. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell commented on the partial reconstruction of the house after the fire. Ralph Wilcox, AHPP, stated that the back porch had been removed and replaced with something that was similar in appearance. Vice Chair Russell asked if the porch replacement have an impact on the house. Mr. Wilcox said that the porch was a smaller scale, it was located in the rear of the building, and staff did not believe it would affect the nomination. There was no citizen comment on this item. A motion to recommend approving the nomination of the Homard House under Criterion C was made by Commission Toni Johnson and was seconded by Vice Chair Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Page 21 of 66 DATE: November 14, 2016 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 1403 E 6th Street REQUEST: Nomination of the Darragh Building to the National Register PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1403 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 2, Block 0, Darragh Comm’l Subdivision to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. IV-E. Location of Darragh Building Page 22 of 66 The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”, “Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified Local Governments.” In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation commissions shall include: “Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that discipline before rendering its decision.” In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state: A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed for nomination to the National Register. I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission and the chief elected official. 2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National Register criteria. 3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation. B. CLG involvement in the National Register process I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of the property. 2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30 calendar days of receipt. 3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is Page 23 of 66 filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA. 4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. 5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final decision. 6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination. 7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report. PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Darragh Building to the National Register. The nomination states: The Darragh Company Building is a Mid-Century Modern building designed by Noland Blass, Jr. of the Little Rock architectural firm of Erhart, Eichenbaum, Rauch, & Blass in 1958. It was constructed utilizing post and beam construction techniques, replacing the need for heavy-load bearing walls with steel, concrete and glass. The Darragh Building was designed for commercial use for the Darragh Company and is located just east of Downtown Little Rock at 1403 East Sixth Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, within a primarily warehouse and industrial district. The Darragh Building is approximately 4000 square feet. Significant features of the structure include: floor-to-ceiling glass walls and windows, extended floor and roof slabs that emphasize the building’s horizontal lines, a roof with no slope, a building-surrounded interior atrium, floating steps leading to the building’s front entrance, and exterior and interior concrete infill panels decorated with a stretched octagon and diamond three-dimensional pattern. The Darragh Company Building is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C as an excellent example of modernist architecture in Little Rock, Arkansas, designed by Nolan Blass, Jr, with local significance. Page 24 of 66 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C with Local Significance. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff made a brief presentation on the nomination. Ralph Wilcox, AHPP, stated that he would answer any questions if needed. There were no citizen comments. A motion to recommend approving the nomination of the Darragh Building under Criterion C was made by Commission Toni Johnson and was seconded by Commissioner Dick Kelley. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Page 25 of 66 DATE: November 14, 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 26 of 66 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 27 of 66 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. T he “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 is suance 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 28 of 66 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 29 of 66 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 30 of 66 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 t hree 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 31 of 66 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 32 of 66 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 wind ows. 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 33 of 66 DETAILING The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim. FAÇADE The front façade features a single garage door on the first floor with two fixed large widows on the second and third floor. The front (west) façade will be sheathed in stained white oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally. The boards are approximately a 1” x 5”. SCALE This proposed structure is unique to the district with a ratio of 1:2.41 width to height. This is not a typical width to height. Historic houses in the district are wider than this one at 16’. In the photos below, 923 McMath has a width to height of 1.5:1, 718 E 10th is more horizontal with a ratio of 1.74:1, 1007 McMath has a ratio of 1.3:1 and 712 E 11th has a ratio of 1.3:1. These numbers were generated from survey photos. All of these structures are wider than they are tall. MASSING The massing of this building is taller in proportion than the rest of the buildings in the immediate area. The overall mass may be similar, but the overtly vertical nature of it does not blend with the neighborhood. If the two houses were joined by some architectural feature to emphasize the pedestrian visitor entry, the two houses might be read as one and the proportion of the width to height would be closer to a 1:1. Proposed garage door (door only, not surround or brick) Proposed Entry door Page 34 of 66 923 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 35 of 66 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 36 of 66 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 d iscussion 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 showin g 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 37 of 66 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 38 of 66 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 carriag e 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 structur e. All of these are on corner lots with the garage doors facing the other street. The Lincoln House (panoramic photo) The Lincoln House, an Italianate structure is shown above with the front façade facing 7th Street and the detached garage facing Cumberland Street. The detached garage is to the left in the photo behind the tree. Page 39 of 66 624 S Rock Street (panoramic photo) 624 S Rock is shown above with the front façade facing Rock Street and the detached garage facing 7th Street. The detached garage is to the right in the photo. 1003 S Scott Street front facade 1003 S Scott Street side facade The Bragg Apartments at 1003 S Scott is shown above. This building from is unique in the fact that the detached garage is located at the far back corner of the lot with the garage accessible from both street and two garage doors on two façades. This does fit the pattern in the facade that the garage is smaller in footprint area, smaller in mass and is located on a corner lot. Page 40 of 66 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 structure on the lot. An accessory structure is built on the same lot as the principal structure; serves the principal building; is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose. These four examples are perfect examples of accessory structures. North Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage East Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage South Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage West Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage Page 41 of 66 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 is 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 hou se 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 t he 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 42 of 66 the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.” The form of 1001 McMath could be viewed as a corner commercial building with residential uses above which were common in Little Rock in the past. However, the other buildings in those blocks adhered to a residential setback which accentuated the commercial form on the corner. Originally there were three houses in the 1000 block of McMath as shown on the Sanborn maps that had similar front yard setbacks. 1007 McMath is the only one of the three houses which had uniform setbacks to survive. 2. Building Mass and Scale: “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” In the last hearing, the applicant stated that 1001 McMath was actually 38’-2” tall, three feet taller than the application showed. The roof on 1001 slants to the east which diminishes the mass as the viewer looks east. The houses proposed at 1003 and 1005 have a constant ridgeline of 38’-8”. These two houses will be built taller and the farther one is to the east, the more the height difference will be between the buildings. This would be the tallest structure in the area of significance. The guidelines state that “New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” These individual structures do not comply with this statement. The individual houses ratios are unusually tall to their width. If the entry feature is added, and is deemed to visually combine the structures into one, the overall height to width could be more in line with other structures in the district. 3. Building Form “Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)” The house features a gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. Some historic houses originally had metal roofs, some standing seam and some metal shingles. The roof shape and material is appropriate to the district. The entrance area to each unit is to the rear of the structure. The entry feature that was proposed might serve as the entry to the two units with the contemporary porch, but the horizontal slats of wood do not differentiate the door versus the rest of the wall section. More detail will be needed to be provided to assure that this reads as a combined entry to the units. The windows in the units on three sides are random and lacking rhythm. In the photos of houses, there is a discernable rhythm in the window placement. There is also a commonality of window shapes that are rectangular in shape placed vertically on the façade. 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar Page 43 of 66 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 44 of 66 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 45 of 66 Mr. Wilson handed out a copy of the graphic from the Heiple Wiedower Study. He believes that this is how a neighborhood should look over time. Mr. Wilson stated that parking should be unobtrusive. The Commission will decide ’what’ unobtrusive is. He talked about progression of architectural styles in the district. He stated that he has to follow Public Works guidelines on curb cuts. Mr. Wilson believes that this building is not the tallest. He had a list of the buildings that he believes are taller than his. He ended his presentation with the Museum of Black History on the Mall in Washington DC. This is what something old and something new look l like together. He quoted section B, page 55, of the New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings guidelines on page 55 of the Guidelines. Concerning Building Orientation, with UU zoning, he believes it should line up with 1001 McMath instead of 1007 McMath. He mentioned that 1009 was close to the street. On Building Mass and Scale, the thought he met the threshold with entries in the rear. The thought his new entry feature that tied the building together. On Building Form, he referenced the gable form and dog trot integrations. On Building Materials, he believes he is similar. He then handed out a picture of CorTen steel staining seam metal on a house. Mr. Wilson stated he was fronting MacArthur Park. He said that he has spent eleven years on the MacArthur Park group. He said he recruited Sharon Priest to the MacArthur Park Group. He references the Park as the core or spoke of neighborhood. He stated nobody had worked harder to make a difference for MacPark. He spoke of contributions to other areas and talked about the condition of the park. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked him to stay on topic with his presentation. He thinks that his building will not harm the park. The area will never go back to the density that was there before. He is trying to add some density back to the neighborhood. Commissioner Holder suggested switching the garage doors. Commissioner Holder stated that the applicant wanted open spaces and the space in the rear is not that big in comparison to the very large open space of the park across the street. He asked if Mr. Wilson could change parking in the rear to be angled and have enough space to have driveways to the garages in the back of the buildings. Mr. Wilson said he did not have enough room to add more parking. Commissioner Holder believes that he does. Vice Chair Russell asked if the garages are required for the project. Mr. Wilson stated that they were for potential buyers. Vice Chair Russell stated that in UU zoning, off street parking is not required. He continued that the argument is against curb cuts at the front of the house. He did not believe that people moved to MacArthur Park in order to park in their garages. He asked again if garages are required for the project. Would it be a detriment on the project? Vice Chair Russell asked if he would be willing to get rid of the garages. Mr. Wilson said maybe but his project must be competitive. Row houses with garages are more desirable. Vice 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 46 of 66 Commissioner Dick Kelley asked where the property line in relation to the 10 foot separation is. Mr. Wilson stated he must maintain the 10 foot separation between buildings. Commissioner Kelley asked can he not use that 10 foot to use as a driveway. A discussion followed with Mr. Wilson stating that he could not use those areas as driveways. Commissioner Holder asked if Mr. Wilson could not angle four spaces, could he install four parallel spaces and make room for the driveways to access the garages from the rear. Vice Chair Russell stated that he would have to remove a building. Mr. Wilson stated that he could put a storage unit in that area where the site plan shows a building. Commissioner Johnson does not see that much difference in the revised plan except for entry feature. Mr. Wilson thinks it will read as one building. Commissioner Johnson thinks the rhythm and form are the two main things she is concerned about. The placement on the lot should relate more to the historic house. The ratio of wall to window area is inappr opriate 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 47 of 66 Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, stated that these are two separate buildings and two applications. Maybe if the buildings were designed to be connected together in some way, they ought to be considered together. Adam Day, who worked on the project, spoke of the building being a record of our time. People will not build old Victorian structures. Jeff Horton, an architect, voiced support of the application. Chair Bowen stated that the applicant has made a request to defer the item to the next meeting. Vice Chair Russell stated in regards to Building Orientation, he had some concern with the relationship between the two applications. Some thought might be taken to shift the buildings back getting closer to 1007. On the Building Mass and Scale, some Commissioners have an issue with the vertical height to the width. He made an argument for the screen wall as it needs to be read as a singular mass. On Building Materials, the CorTen steel appears to rust, but it is a patina. It will stabilize and protect material. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer application to next meeting. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer both applications to the November 2016 hearing and Commissioner Kelley seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions. STAFF UPDATE: November 14, 2016 Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on October 14, 2016 asking for a deferral to the December 2016 agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the December 12, 2016 agenda. COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016 The applicant requested a deferral to the November 2015 hearing via email on October 14, 2016. A motion was made to accept the deferral to the December 2016 hearing by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Ted Holder. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Page 48 of 66 DATE: November 14, 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 retard ants 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 49 of 66 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 50 of 66 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 is suance 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 51 of 66 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 52 of 66 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 53 of 66 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 54 of 66 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 55 of 66 The solar panels are to be located on the south side of roof. They are made by Sunmodule Plus SW280 Mondo Black. They are 8 kilowatt each and measure 66”x37” each. The proposal is to place 20 panels on the south facing slope of the roof for an area of 30’x12’. The location is for maximum efficiency, but they will be visible from the street. ENTRANCE AREA The entry door to the house is at the rear of the structure, not prominently displayed. This is non-typical for single family houses in the district. The dominance of the garage on the front façade is also very non- typical for the district. Staff surveyed the district and did not find any front loading garages on single family houses. The visitor entry to the house is at the rear of the structure with few visual clues as to the location of the entry door. The entry door will feature a raised wood deck with 2x6 wood decking. This will be approximately flush with the threshold of the door. There will be no handrails or railings. There will be a small canopy over the door of CorTen standing seam roofing. WALL AREAS This house features CorTen corrugated steel siding or stained white oak. White Oak is on the west and south facades and the CorTen is on the north and east facades. King size brick (oversize) is on the first floor with CMU foundation. The foundation is in CMU block for a maximum height of 2’-0”. CMU block is short for Common Masonry Unit. These will be 8’x8’x16’ smooth gray concrete blocks. The brick is a king size brick made by Boral, the Liberty Collection- Henderson with dimensions 9 5/8” x 2 ¾” x 3”. This is a larger size brick. This is a wire cut commercial brick. The CorTen siding is an 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 56 of 66 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 57 of 66 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 58 of 66 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 59 of 66 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 carriag e 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 structur e. 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 60 of 66 624 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 61 of 66 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 structure 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 62 of 66 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 h ouse 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 63 of 66 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 64 of 66 and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.) The wall areas are to be either stained white oak, brick, or CorTen corrugated steel siding in a vertical orientation. Wood siding is a common material in the district. Corrugated metal siding on a wall surface is found on accessory buildings in the district. Half of 1005 and more than half of 1003 is proposed to be built out of a material that is found on accessory structures on a non- dominant façade. The standing seam roof proposed was used on several historic structures in the district. The garage door and entry doors into the units are flush with no glass inserts and no raised panels. The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and windows will be J-trim with 1 ¼” face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8” wide trim. This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Rhythm, Entrance area, and Wall areas. The added submittal of the entry feature may affect the Proportion, Scale, or Massing of the structure. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence. The rhythm of the exterior walls on the east, north and south sides are undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to window area is inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The scale and massing are also atypical to the neighborhood. The ordinance states in Section 23-120 (f): “Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence.” With the above listed concerns, the proposed structure is not appropriate for the district. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2016 See discussion of 1003 McMath for general comments on this item. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer application to next meeting. Vice Chair Russell made a motion to defer both applications to the November 2016 hearing and Commissioner Kelley seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions. STAFF UPDATE: November 14, 2016 Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on October 14, 2016 asking for a deferral to the December 2016 agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the December 12, 2016 agenda. Page 65 of 66 COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016 The applicant requested a deferral to the November 2015 hearing via email on October 14, 2016. A motion was made to accept the deferral to the December 2016 hearing by Commissioner Ted Holder and was seconded by Commissioner Dick Kelley. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. Other Matters Enforcement issues 401 E Capitol will be on the agenda in December 2016. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was given to the Commission earlier. Commissioner Johnson asked if they could have comments on the McMath properties. She was told that they were imbedded in the staff report. All comments should be in the application. 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 5:56 p.m. Date / 2, - fZ, - ZfV((e�7 Date Page 66 of 66