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