Loading...
HDC_12 12 2016Page 1 of 63 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, December 12, 2016, 5:05 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (5) in number. Members Present: Chair BJ Bowen Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Toni Johnson Dick Kelley Ted Holder Lauren Frederick Members Absent: Open Position City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Jimmy Moses Ray Nolan Jill Judy Mark Brown William Page Wilson Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 2016 public hearing as submitted. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick). Election of officers: There was a motion to suspend the order of the agenda by Commissioner Toni Johnson. Commissioner Dick Kelley seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 open position. Commissioner Toni Johnson nominated Commissioner Dick Kelley as the Chair of the Commission for 2017. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell nominated himself as Chair. Chair BJ DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov Page 2 of 63 Bowen called the vote. Commissioner Kelly received four votes (Bowen, Johnson, Kelly, and Holder), Commissioner Russell received one vote (Russell), and Frederick recused. Chair Bowen nominated Commissioner Ted Holder as the Vice-Chair of the commission for, 2017. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell nominated himself as Vice-Chair for 2017. Chair BJ Bowen called the vote. Commissioner Holder received four votes (Bowen, Johnson, Kelly, Holder), Commissioner Russell received one vote (Russell) and Frederick recused. Page 3 of 63 DATE: December 12, 2016 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC ADDRESS: 1003 McMath Ave. COA REQUEST: Infill House PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11, and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This site that is under consideration for the two row houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1003 McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1005 is a separate item. This project will be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has finished their review. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897 Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings. On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue 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 4 of 63 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 5 of 63 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This proposal is to add two “Row Homes” at 1003 and 1005 McMath. This staff report will address 1003 McMath. 1005 McMath is a separate item on this agenda. The “Row House” is three stories tall with a gable front roof with stained oak horizontal siding on the front façade with a front loading single car garage. The entry to the house is a side entry near the rear of the house. Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following: Text of the Arkansas state statute: 14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition. (a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a building permit is required. (2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant fixtures. (b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission. The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required. Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required. No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures. Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations. In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. Page 6 of 63 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 7 of 63 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 8 of 63 Elevations submitted August 14, 2016 GENERAL DESIGN. It is a three story single family residence with a gable end roof. The front façade (west) is dominated by a garage door on the first floor and a large fixed window on the second and third floor. Windows on the other three facades are scattered with various sizes and shapes. The first floor is masonry; king size brick. The remainder of the front façade is stained white oak laid horizontally. The remainders of the other three facades are proposed to be corrugated CorTen steel wall panels. CorTen steel has a naturally oxidizing finish. Weathering steel is a group of steel alloys developed to obviate the need for painting and form a stable rust-like appearance if exposed to the weather for several years. The south facing slope of the roof is proposed to have solar panels. The roof is proposed to have standing seam CorTen steel panels. GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES See below for the descriptions of the remainder of the items. Wall light fixtures are a Progress cylinder light fixture model 5675- 20/30k antique bronze LED. These are proposed on each side of the garage door and by the entry door. The light is 14” tall and 5” in diameter. SITING The house will sit 10’-0” to the south of 1001 McMath, the mixed use building. It will sit 8’-0” north of 1005. The front setback will be aligned with the existing 1001 McMath. This setback relates to 1001 McMath and does not relate to 1007 McMath. HEIGHT According to plans, the house is 37’-4” plus 1’-4” (foundation) for a total of 38’-8” tall. The height of 1001 per the plans is 35’-2”. The law school dorms on McAlmont Street are between 32’-4’ and 37’-0” depending on which parapet is measured. The yellow house is the shortest of them all at between 30 and 31 feet tall. This would be the tallest structure in the area of significance. Proposed Light Fixture Page 9 of 63 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 10 of 63 at the rear of the structure with few visual clues as to the location of the entry door. The entry door will feature a raised wood deck with 2x6 wood decking. This will be approximately flush with the threshold of the door. There will be no handrails or railings. There will be a small canopy over the door of CorTen standing seam roofing WALL AREAS This house features CorTen corrugated steel siding or stained white oak. King size brick (oversize) is on the first floor with CMU foundation. The foundation is in CMU block for a maximum height of 2’-0”. CMU block is short for Common Masonry Unit. These will be 8’x8’x16’ smooth gray concrete blocks. The brick is a king size brick made by Boral, the Liberty Collection- Henderson with dimensions 9 5/8” x 2 ¾” x 3”. This is a larger size brick. This is a wire cut commercial brick. The CorTen siding is a A606-4 Western Stated/Bridger Weathering Steel, installed in a vertical orientation. It is a 22 gauge CorTen steel 7/8” corrugated in 37’ wide panels. The spacing of the corrugations is 2 2/3” wide. The garage door is a Masonite door, steel flush door in 24 gauge steel and is insulated. It measures 7’ tall by 12’. This is a single garage door with no raised panels or windows. The entry door is a 36” x 80” Masonite Sta-Tru HD flush steel door with no glass. The side and rear facades feature two horizontal slit windows, twelve square windows, and two vertical windows, one which is ganged with a casement window under a fixed window. The ratio of solid wall to windows is atypical with so little of the walls being dedicated to windows. The windows are Anderson 100 series Awning and Casement windows in Bronze. The windows are made of Fibrex – a blend of 40 percent wood fiber by weight and 60 percent thermoplastic polymer by weight. The letter of August 14th states they will be casement and awning windows. The windows, according to the sketches, will not have interior muntins. Sketch of entry area Corrugated CorTen steel siding Page 11 of 63 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 12 of 63 923 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 13 of 63 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 structur es 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 14 of 63 the two. There was a question on what staff would call the structure. Mr. Minyard responded that Staff would decide what to call it after it was submitted to them. There was a discussion on the Guidelines recommendations on fence heights and the locations of the fences. Commissioner Toni Johnson commented on the other duplexes being replatted for zero lot lines and asked why he could not do that. Mr. Wilson replied that he wanted to separate them for sound issues and ease of construction and build one at a time. He noted a negative public perception of duplexes. Commissioner Johnston stated that he was arguing for a looser interpretation of the guidelines because of what is around it. They cannot throw out that many of the guidelines to support this application. She spoke of the height, rhythm, scale, massing, and materials. To his comments on this from being in the district already, she noted that Mr. Wilson was only showing a portion of the building, not all of it. Mr. Wilson stated that the CorTen steel looks rusty when it is done. Changes for opening and not viewed as easily and will mostly be in the shadow. He continued that the solar panels will be hard to see. Vice Chair Russell stated that based on the four criteria, he believes that the project complies. On orientation, he believes that it complies. On mass and scale, the form is an abstraction of other houses from various styles of building. On the building form, he says this is a classic form. On building materials, it has predominately used wood. On the facades, the metal will not be seen from the street. Mr. Wilson stated that the orientation of the metal was vertical. Mr. Wilson talked of the contributing and non-contributing map. He spoke of the new apartments in the 500 block of Rock that are 50 feet high. He stated he was willing to add an abstraction to join the building, but did not want it to be unsafe for the residents. Vice Chair Russell wanted the applicant to bring physical samples of the steel and wood to the meeting. Mr. Minyard stated that he had one piece of wood that was given to Staff, but it was unremarkable. Mr. Minyard clarified that the wood should be attached to another piece so that the Commission could see how the individual pieces are attached in relation to the others. Chair BJ Bowen stated that the project did not have the typical proportion; the garage is on the front; the height is taller; the entrance door is in the rear not prominently displayed; and the slit windows need to be larger. All of these things do not adhere to the guidelines. Mr. Wilson stated that on Italianate structures, the windows are all over the place in size. The small windows are in the dark edges of the building and not seen from the street. The buildings are 84’ long and 20’ wide. The shotguns he has built are either 18’ wide or 18’ with bumpouts. He stated that he is not interested in building replica lite but has voted for them. He then spoke of the Mayors letter. He continued that he did not get tax credits for these projects since he is in new construction. Vice Chair Russell stated that he still has issues with the proportion. Commissioner Dick Kelley asked has he thought about security between the buildings. Mr. Wilson believes that eyes on the street will help the neighbors patrol the area. The windows do not face each other. Page 15 of 63 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 f or 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 16 of 63 Staff inventoried the neighborhood for single family houses with garage doors on the front façade of the house - there are none. There are seven detached garages with garage doors facing the street in the district. These structures are in the rear of properties where carriage houses were originally sited. The ones that were mentioned in the presentation, The Lincoln House at 301 E 7th Street, 624 S Rock Street, 1023 Cumberland and 1003 S Scott Street were built as residential with a carriage house in the rear of the structure. All of these are on corner lots with the garage doors facing the other street. The Lincoln House (panoramic photo) The Lincoln House, an Italianate structure is shown above with the front façade facing 7th Street and the detached garage facing Cumberland Street. The detached garage is to the left in the photo behind the tree. Page 17 of 63 624 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 u nique 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 18 of 63 1023 S Cumberland front facade 1023 S Cumberland side facade 1023 S Cumberland is shown above with the front façade facing Cumberland Street and the detached garage on the right in the photos facing 11th Street. These four houses with the accompanying detached garages were a common form at the time. A larger principal structure was located at the front of the lot and a smaller, in footprint, detached garage at the rear of the property was either one or two story. The two storied examples were often used for servants’ quarters and later were used as apartments for rental income. This pattern of houses with detached garages is common in multiple historic districts in the city. This pattern is not dependent on whether an alley is present. On page 2 of this report, the Sanborn Maps show multiple accessory buildings along the alley way in the 1000 block of McMath. The detached garages were built as an accessory structures on the lot. An accessory structure is built on the same lot as the principal structure; serves the principal building; is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose. These four examples are perfect examples of accessory structures. North Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage East Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage South Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage West Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage Page 19 of 63 This structure is the detached garage at 1003 S Scott Street. This structure does have corrugated metal in a vertical orientation on the east and south side. This detached garage is to the rear of the lot on the east and on the property line on the south, has access from the both streets, and is an accessory structure. The metal siding is on the sides of the garage that is farthest away from the house and farthest from the streets. The street facing façades, the north and west façade with the garage doors has brick veneer that matches the brick of the house. The west façade, a solid wall that is closest to the house, is all brick that matches the house. Parking of cars does occur in the front setback of some structures that were built as single family houses in the district and has for some time. This is rare and the only case that Staff knows of are the houses on the 600 block of Ferry Street. There is not an alley to the rear of these lots so parking on the street or in the front yards are the only option. At least one house does not have off street parking. There are also some apartment building s 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 20 of 63 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 t he 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 contempor ary 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 21 of 63 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 22 of 63 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 23 of 63 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 C hair 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 24 of 63 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 inappropriate in her view; the windows are too small or too few. A big concern for her is the garage door on front. Commissioner Bowen thinks a lot of the Commissioners are concerned with the garage door on the front. Commissioner Holder stated that new construction should not replicate but blend. Some obviously does not blend. The two mobile homes that have been joined together across from his house do not blend. The garage door on this application is very prominent. It looks like a storage unit. It does not read like a house. He can see the form but would like the house to have more windows. He also brought up the point that a car could park in front of the garage door. He summarized that the house did not blend. Mr. Wilson asked if it was more desirable to have a garage door or to park off street. He mentioned the ranch house and on-street parking. Commissioner Holder stated that there was nothing like this in the district in relation to parking. He continued that there should be a consideration of proximity to the park. This project does not fit or blend. The garage doors are his biggest concern. Commissioner Johnson stated that she assumed that he would change his submittals. She said that she was concerned about the location and number of porches. She would like to see two porches in relation to the form of the buildings, the entrances to the buildings. Vice Chair Russell asked if abstraction of form is read as single building. Is there an objection to having a single porch? Commissioner Johnson responded that it would depend on how it is designed. If this is it, this design is not compatible within the district. She does not see the entry feature as a porch. Mr. Wilson stated that he could submit a new design and may delete the garages. He stated that he wanted to defer these applications. Commissioner Holder stated that these may be built one at a time and that could affect the design or order in which it was built. Vice Chair Russell stated the order of construction of the applicant is not our concern. Commissioner Holder stated that it was. Page 25 of 63 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. STAFF UPDATE: December 12, 2016 Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on November 18, 2016 asking for a deferral to the January 2017 agenda. His email stated: We do not have time to update our plans for 1003-1005 McMath Ave. I would like to defer to January 2017. If we change the plan completely, I think we will request a withdrawal. Consider this as our deferral. We will inform staff should we decide to change plan entirely. Sincerely, Page STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the January 9, 2017 agenda unless the application is to change completely. If that is the case, Staff recommends withdrawal. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 The applicant, Page Wilson, approached the podium and stated that he wanted to withdraw his application at this time. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked him to verify if he was asking to withdraw both items. He replied yes. Page 26 of 63 Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to waive the bylaws in reference to Section 7 Withdrawals to allow a withdrawal of two items without the request being submitted in writing more than five days in advance of the hearing. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick). Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to withdraw the items at 1003 and 1005 McMath without prejudice. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick). Page 27 of 63 DATE: December 12, 2016 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC ADDRESS: 1005 McMath Ave. COA REQUEST: Infill House PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11, and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This site that is under consideration for the two row houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1005 McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1003 is a separate item. This project will be required to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has finished their review. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files. The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897 Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings. On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A large wrap around porch faced the street corner and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the “Auto House” in the rear that fronted on the alley. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. B. Location of Project Page 28 of 63 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: 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 Page 29 of 63 with a front loading single car garage. The entry to the house is a side entry near the rear of the house. Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following: Text of the Arkansas state statute: 14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition. (a)(1) No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and paving or other appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or demolished within an historic district until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to exterior architectural features has been submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. The municipality or county shall require a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of const ructing 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: Sec 23-120. – General Criteria Page 30 of 63 (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 historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights Page 31 of 63 (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 32 of 63 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 33 of 63 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 34 of 63 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 a A606-4 Western Stated/Bridger Weathering Steel, installed in a vertical orientation. It is a 22 gauge CorTen steel 7/8” corrugated in 37’ wide panels. The spacing of the corrugations is 2 2/3” wide. The south side façade will be sheathed in stained white oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally. The boards are approximately a 1” x 5”. The garage door is a Masonite door, steel flush door in 24 gauge steel and is insulated. It measures 7’ tall by 12’. This is a single garage door with no raised panels or windows. The entry door is a 36” x 80” Masonite Sta-Tru HD flush steel door with no glass. Sketch of entry area Corrugated CorTen steel siding Page 35 of 63 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 36 of 63 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 37 of 63 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 38 of 63 The contributing structures on the street are the Law School at 1201 McMath (originally the UAMS Medical School), the house at 1007 McMath and the house at 923 McMath. In Arkansas, the out buildings are also shown as contributing as an accessory structure to the principal structure. They are not contributing in their own right. Staff inventoried the neighborhood for single family houses with garage doors on the front façade of the house - there are none. There are seven detached garages with garage doors facing the street in the district. These structures are in the rear of properties where carriage houses were originally sited. The ones that were mentioned in the presentation, The Lincoln House at 301 E 7th Street, 624 S Rock Street, 1023 Cumberland and 1003 S Scott Street were built as residential with a carriage house in the rear of the structure. All of these are on corner lots with the garage doors facing the other street. The Lincoln House (panoramic photo) The Lincoln House, an Italianate structure is shown above with the front façade facing 7th Street and the detached garage facing Cumberland Street. The detached garage is to the left in the photo behind the tree. Page 39 of 63 624 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 63 1023 S Cumberland front facade 1023 S Cumberland side facade 1023 S Cumberland is shown above with the front façade facing Cumberland Street and the detached garage on the right in the photos facing 11th Street. These four houses with the accompanying detached garages were a common form at the time. A larger principal structure was located at the front of the lot and a smaller, in footprint, detached garage at the rear of the property was either one or two story. The two storied examples were often used for servants’ quarters and later were used as apartments for rental income. This pattern of houses with detached garages is common in multiple historic districts in the city. This pattern is not dependent on whether an alley is present. On page 2 of this report, the Sanborn Maps show multiple accessory buildings along the alley way in the 1000 block of McMath. The detached garages were built as an accessory structures on the lot. An accessory structure is built on the same lot as the principal structure; serves the principal building; is subordinate in area, extent, or purpose. These four examples are perfect examples of accessory structures. North Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage East Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage South Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage West Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage Page 41 of 63 This structure is the detached garage at 1003 S Scott Street. This structure does have corrugated metal in a vertical orientation on the east and south side. This detached garage is to the rear of the lot on the east and on the property line on the south, has access from the both streets, and is an accessory structure. The metal siding is on the sides of the garage that is farthest away from the house and farthest from the streets. The street facing façades, the north and west façade with the garage doors has brick veneer that matches the brick of the house. The west façade, a solid wall that is closest to the house, is all brick that matches the house. Parking of cars does occur in the front setback of some structures that were built as single family houses in the district and has for some time. This is rare and the only cases that Staff knows of are the houses on the 600 block of Ferry Street. There is not an alley to the rear of these lots so parking on the street or in the front yards are the only option. At least one house does not have off street parking. There are also some apartment buildings that only have on street parking. The single family row houses that are proposed to be built have only a garage door on the front of the units. The added entry feature as shown in the revised drawings may not be built until the second unit is finished as a builder would have to work around it. The entry feature’s gate to the entry area is not very pronounced and will depend on the walkway from the public sidewalk to announce that this is the entrance to the two units. Staff inventoried the district and did not find any single family structures with f ront 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. T he 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 63 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 63 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 44 of 63 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. STAFF UPDATE: December 12, 2016 Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on November 18, 2016 asking for a deferral to the January 2017 agenda. His email stated: We do not have time to update our plans for 1003-1005 McMath Ave. I would like to defer to January 2017. If we change the plan completely, I think we will request a withdrawal. Consider this as our deferral. We will inform staff should we decide to change plan entirely. Sincerely, Page STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the January 9, 2017 agenda unless the application is to change completely. If that is the case, Staff recommends withdrawal. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 The applicant, Page Wilson, approached the podium and stated that he wanted to withdraw his application at this time. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked him to verify if he was asking to withdr aw both items. He replied yes. Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to waive the bylaws in reference to Section 7 Withdrawals to allow a withdrawal of two items without the request being submitted in writing more than five days in advance of the hearing. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick). Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to withdraw the items at 1003 and 1005 McMath without prejudice. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick). Page 45 of 63 DATE: December 12, 2016 APPLICANT: Jimmy Moses, Magnolia Flats, LLC ADDRESS: 401 E Capitol Avenue COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 507 Rock Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1 and 2, Block 150, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This multifamily building was built c. 1934 as the Voss Apartments. The 2006 survey form states: “Some Craftsman detailing on the roof and decorative brick detailing.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of an enforcement action. This item is only for the metal fence along Capitol Avenue east of the apartment building. The fence around the swimming pool area was included in that permit that was not routed properly for HDC staff review. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On May 11, 2015, a COA was approved and issued to Moses Tucker for the construct ion of a duplex at 507 Rock Street that included the fence in question. 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. C. Location of Project Page 46 of 63 Capitol Avenue fence view from east Capitol Avenue fence view from west PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Below is the section of the Guidelines referring to fences under which this fence was approved. The Guidelines state the following: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36” Rear yard fencing—72” Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50 years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron or wooden fence. Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the building. For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the scale of the building and grounds. Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may be 72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure. Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on Page 47 of 63 pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood. The staff report of May 11, 2016 stated that the fence along Capitol Avenue was to be thirty-six inches tall. In the hearing, Mr. Chris East, that was representing the application, stated that the fences on Rock Street and Capitol Avenue were planned to be thirty-six inches tall. He continued that a landscape plan would be submitted for the parking lot. That parking lot was to be expanded and reconfigured. The original proposal when the duplex was being considered was to fence the parking lot with automatic gates and secure the parking lot. The parking lot was to be reconfigured and additional spaces and a driveway from Rock Street added. The duplex is no longer under consideration. In its place, a swimming pool has been built with a small gathering space that was described in the original application. It appears that the parking lot reconfiguration and expansion will not be built. In the graphic below, the red line along Capitol Avenue represents the fence in question. It is labeled “6’ Fence”. Perpendicular to Capitol Avenue is a three foot fence, shown in blue labeled “3’ Fence (pre-existing). The 2006 Survey shows the three foot fence in the photos. It is immediately to the west of the parking lot and to the east of the building. In the photo to the right below, the white truck is parked in the alley. The three foot fence is shown just beyond the red car and the jeep. Aerial view of parking lot 3’ fence shown at the front of the red car. The six foot fence does not provide any additional security to the parked cars. The cars are parked in a non-secured parking lot that has the alley functioning as the aisle; the cars back into the alley to leave and enter the parking lot through the alley. The fence was approved at the thirty-six inch height but was installed at the six foot height. This fence, along with others, begs the question of taller fences at the public right -of-way. This fence serves to reinforce the negative stereotypes about the security of downtown. This fence Page 48 of 63 does not totally enclose the parking. It does not provide required fencing around the swimming pool area. This property is not a larger institutional property that sits on a larger parcel of land that would traditionally have a taller fence. Staff cannot support a six foot fence in this location. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: November 14, 2016 Staff informed the Commission that the applicant had not completed the notices as required. Staff is recommending deferral of the item until the December 2016 Hearing. A motion was made to defer to the December 2016 hearing by Commissioner Ted Holder and was seconded by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission did not have any questions of Staff. Ray Nolan, of Moses Tucker, stated that it was an oversight on their part that the fence was installed incorrectly. He asked for the Commission to allow them to keep the fence. Chari BJ Bowen stated that a 3 foot fence had been approved but that a six foot fence had been installed. He asked them why they did not contact Staff about the change as required. Jimmy Moses stated that it was just a mistake and was unsure how it happened. He knows that it is not in compliance. He explained that the project was to be developed in another way, but that the plans had changed. He asked the Commission for forgiveness. He stated that there was a variety of fences and does not believe that this fence is out of character. Commissioner Toni Johnson appreciates that it was noted that it was a mistake. She cannot support the application because it is on a main street and that it projects an image of an unsafe neighborhood. She supports staff’s recommendation. She does support Moses Tucker’s work downtown. Commissioner Ted Holder said that he went to look at the fence before the meeting. He stated that there is lots of controversy about fences in town. He said that they are intrusive when they are six feet tall. He appreciates that they were upfront on the mistake. He agrees with Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Dick Kelley said that the property across the alley has a three foot fence. He believes that the six foot fence is out of proportion with the adjacent fence. He did state that he supported their work downtown. Mr. Moses spoke of Trapnall Hall fence and noted that the Rainwater Building that they developed had a six foot fence. He stated that neighbors want more safety and their company is trying to stabilize the neighborhood. Page 49 of 63 William Page Wilson spoke of issues of continuity. Trapnall Hall is set back and the height of the fence has to do with the scale of the building. MacArthur Park it is an urban historic area. As a honest mistake, he would let the fence stay. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the fence to remain as constructed at 6 foot. Commissioner Johnson seconded and the motion failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 5 noes, 1 open position, and 1 recusal (Frederick). Those commissioners that had not voiced their reason, as to why they voted as they did, spoke to that point. Chair Bowen stated that it was non-conforming with existing structures on the size of fences. Commissioner Russell stated that taller fences do not make a good neighborhood. Mr. Moses thanked the Commission for hearing us and reminded them that they were across the street from the Transit Center and feels positive with the associated crime and activity with the transit center. He urged them to consider the upkeep and maintenance of the properties. He admitted he was wrong and would live with the decision of the Commission. Commissioner Russell agrees with you, though this commission just revised the guidelines. He stated that Mr. Moses’s argument is faulty since the fence does not turn the corner and secure any property and is perpendicular to a three foot fence. Page 50 of 63 DATE: December 12, 2016 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Porch Restoration PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East 110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31 feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house, which was converted to multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent businessman. House moved from original location at SW corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for a Porch Restoration to replace the porch per pictorial evidence. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to fire damage. On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance of siding, windows and brick. On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary construction fence and interior remodel. On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing seam metal roof. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Location of Project Page 51 of 63 On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street. 2006 Survey east (front) elevation East (Front) elevation Existing south elevation Existing north elevation PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The applicant wishes to reconstruct the porch that was originally built on the house according to pictorial evidence. On other applications, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation are used. However, this project requires the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Restoration to be used. The manual The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for the Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995 by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, is available at http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-guidelines.pdf It states on page 117: “Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgr ading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.” Those ten “Standards for Restoration” are as follows: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the property’s restoration period. Page 52 of 63 2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research. 4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. 7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically. 8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed. Also, on page 119 of the document, it states: “Rather than maintaining and preserving a building as it has evolved over time, the expressed goal of the Standards for Restoration and Guidelines for Restoring Historic Buildings is to make the building appear as it did at a particular—and most significant—time in its history. First, those materials and features from the “restoration period” are identified, based on thorough historical research. Next, features from the restoration period are maintained, protected, repaired (i.e., stabilized, consolidated, and conserved), and replaced, if necessary. As opposed to other treatments, the scope of work in Restoration can include removal of features from other periods; missing features from the restoration period may be replaced, based on documentary and physical evidence, using traditional materials or compatible substitute materials. The final guidance emphasizes that only those designs that can be documented as having been built should be re-created in a restoration project.” Furthermore, on page 119 of the document, it states: “Most Restoration projects involve re-creating features that were significant to the building at a particular time, but are now missing. Examples could include a stone balustrade, a porch, or cast iron storefront. Each missing feature should be Page 53 of 63 substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Without sufficient documentation for these “re-creations,” an accurate depiction cannot be achieved. Combining features that never existed together historically can also create a false sense of history. Using traditional materials to depict lost features is always the preferred approach; however, using compatible substitute material is an acceptable alternative in Restoration because, as emphasized, the goal of this treatment is to replicate the “appearance” of the historic building at a particular time, not to retain and preserve all historic materials as they have evolved over time. If documentary and physical evidence are not available to provide an accurate re-creation of missing features, the treatment Rehabilitation might be a better overall approach to project work.” The house was moved to its current location sometime between 1987 and 1913 according to the Sanborn maps. The earliest photo available dates to 1890’s (see sheets P1.0 & P1.1). Historic photos have guided the work of the architect and applicant to recreate the porch. The porch will be built as close as possible to the photo that is included in the handouts. It is on page P0.0 through P0.3 of the handout. The front door will remain. The posts are square posts with beveled edges and applied trim. The brackets include sawn brackets with trefoil cutouts and “Organic brackets shown on page P1.2. Page P0.2 shows the turned spindles that are to be used in the reconstruction. Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Side Elevation Page 54 of 63 Historic photos of brackets Historic photos of door hood and spindles Historic photos of porch The porch roof will be metal and sloped with no gutters or downspouts shown. The pitch is not noted and will probably be seen from the ground. On page P0.3, it appears that the porch will be a wood porch that is 10’ deep. Test pits were dug to establish the original location of the porch. New steps and sidewalk will be installed. The reconstructed porch, as described in the application documents, fulfills the standards as written above. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. The Commission did not have any questions of Staff. Commissioner Dick Kelley left the meeting at this time. He would have to recuse from the hearing since he owns property within the area of influence. Mark Brown stated that Ed Sergeant has drawn plans as close as possible from the original photos. Jill Judy stated that they wanted to return the structure to the original grandeur. Commissioner Ted Holder asked who supplied to original photo. Ms. Judy replied that Tony Curtis had supplied it to them. The house has similar architecture to other houses on the block. Commissioner Toni Johnson was pleased that they took the time to do the research, drawings, etc. She was glad that they were taking on this project. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell stated that the porch was pretty but it did not relate enough information. He had questions on materials and construction. There was a discussion of the Page 55 of 63 roof of the building. He continued with additional questions. What was the trim to be made from? What are the proportions? Why were these details not submitted with the application? Ms. Judy said that their architect, Ed Sergeant, will draw up the templates and to build the brackets when construction starts. Commissioner Russell said that the majority of his questions deal with the materials, size, scale, proportion, and things specified in the guidelines. He wanted more detail in order to make a decision on this item. Ms. Judy stated that she respected where Commissioner Russell was coming from but they did not want to spend the additional money on all of the detail architectural work before gaining approval from this Commission. She asked that Commissioner Russell trust them to do right on the construction of the porch. Mr. Brown stated this was something that they think is exactly like the original, but do not have the original plans. They request some leeway in construction. Commissioner Russell says that his questions relate to the materials, size, and proportion. He does not have enough information to make a decision. The Chair asked Staff if they were comfortable with the submittals. Mr. Minyard said that they provided a scalable elevation of the front and the side and provided a perspective. They did not list every single material to be used. But Staff thought it was sufficient enough to make a recommendation of approval. Mr. Minyard stated that this applicant has done both federal and state income tax credits before. He stated that it could be asked if this one is going through that process, but if they were, that would be an additional review that would ensure that the porch was correct. Chair BJ Bowen asked if they were seeking Federal and State income tax credits. Ms. Judy stated that they had been approved for part One and Part Two of the federal and State income tax credit. Ms. Judy stated that Commissioner Russell had let his opinion be known and with Commissioner Kelley having to recuse himself and being short one position, and Commissioner Frederick being new, she asked if they needed to withdraw the application. If they defer, is there any way to get approved with an additional commissioner in the near future? Debra Weldon stated that the bylaws provide for the Commission deferring for additiona l information if Commissioner Russell wanted to do so. Deferrals need to be submitted five days in advance per the bylaws. There was more discussion on procedure. Commissioner Lauren Frederick stated that she felt comfortable voting on the item. There was a motion made by Commissioner Holder for the Commission to ask for a deferral of the application to the January 2017 hearing for additional information and for all of the Commissioners to have time to review the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Russell and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position, and 1 absent (Kelley) There was a clarification by Debra Weldon that a majority of Commissioners present constitute a majority when voting on deferrals. Page 56 of 63 DATE: December 12, 2016 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Demolish Wall PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East 110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31 feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house, which was converted to multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent businessman. House moved from original location at SW corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is to demolish part of a concrete wall in the rear of this property. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to fire damage. On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance of siding, windows and brick. On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary construction fence and interior remodel. On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing seam metal roof. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Two. Location of Project Page 57 of 63 On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street. Sketch of property lines Wall section nearest house Existing south elevation with wall to left Existing north elevation with wall to right PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to remove the portion of the concrete wall that is on this property that was once a part of a 4 stall garage structure. The Guidelines address demolishing buildings from the neighborhood. It does not address removing the remainder of parts of buildings. The roof structure and the doors (if it ever had any) were removed prior to the current owner purchasing the property. The 1998 aerial photo shows it without a roof or additional walls or doors. The Sanborn maps below show the changes to the area. The current concrete wall was not shown in the 1913 map. The 1913 and previous maps have different sheds of different sizes and materials on the site. The wall in question appears to be part of the out building that first appears in the 1939 Sanborn Map. It is labeled “A 4 Stalls Conc.” which translates to Automobile use, 4 stalls, and concrete construction. Since the last map of 1950, the structure at Page 58 of 63 900 Scott has been removed, the house at 113 E 9th has been demolished, the house at 908 burned last year and was removed, the shed at 908 was removed, and the roof at the concrete garage stalls on the site had been removed. 1939 Sanborn Map (current building is labeled Clinic) Detail of wall to be removed (rotated to match map to the right) This application is to remove only the portion of the wall that lies within the property of 908 Scott Street. The wall sits within inches of the property line. If the project scope is to return the house and grounds to a pre-1913 look, it would be appropriate to remove the concrete wall. The wall does provide security of sorts from the property at 908 Scott and the properties on Main Street as it is a visual and physical barrier. The ultimate use of the 113 E 9th property will solidify the argument to remove the wall. Demolition of this wall was not included in the demolition of the house at 113 E 9th. That house was demolished during the week of November 28, 2016. A deferral to a later hearing to add the remainder of the wall to this application would resolve the issue of the wall in total. That would require re-notifying the property owners. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 2. Obtaining a demolition permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 For additional information, see item at 904 Scott Porch Reconstruction, HDC16-044. Ms. Judy asked if the commission would defer this and the other item to keep them as a package. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the items for additional information. The motion was seconded and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 open position, and 1 absent (Kelley). There was a clarification from Ms. Weldon that on procedural items as a deferral, the majority in attendance is sufficient for passage. Page 59 of 63 DATE: December 12, 2016 APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Little Rock Historic Properties ADDRESS: 904 Scott Street COA REQUEST: Fence PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904 Scott Street. The property’s legal description is “South 37 feet of the East 110 feet of Lot 11 and the East 11.5 feet of the South 31 feet of the west 40 feet of Lot 11, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house, which was converted to multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent businessman. House moved from original location at SW corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for Fencing on the property. The front yard fence will be a 36” tall steels picket fence. A 6’ wood fence will be in the rear yard and approximately half way (28’ from the front) on the south side and start about 3’ from the front of the house on the north side. A 5’ wide gate will be at the front sidewalk. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 13, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior renovation due to fire damage. On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for exterior maintenance of siding, windows and brick. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. Three. Location of Project Page 60 of 63 On September 4, 2014, a COC was issued to Mark Brown and Jill Judy for a temporary construction fence and interior remodel. On October 6, 2009, a COC was issued to Mary Buchannan to reroof the house with standing seam metal roof. On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Mary Buchannan for the installation of driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street. East (Front) elevation Sketch of property owned by applicant Existing south elevation Existing north elevation (Scale figure is 6’ tall) PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The proposal is to add fencing around the property. A 36” metal fence is proposed for the front yard and part of the side yards and a 6’ wood privacy fence is proposed for the rear and balance of the side yards. The guidelines on page 58 state the following: 3. Fences and Retaining Walls: Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36” Rear yard fencing—72” Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic. Page 61 of 63 Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines. Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the building. For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the scale of the building and grounds. Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may be 72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure. Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is recommended. Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are not appropriate. The front yard fence will be a Montage II 36” tall steel picket fence by Ameristar with 1” square steel 14 gauge pickets with triad finials painted black. That fence will be placed on the property line and start on the south side of the house 28’ back from the existing front of the house. 28’ is approximately half of the total house length. It is half of that wall section. It will continue along Scott Street and then return along the north property line 2’ behind the existing front of the house. This will include a 5’ entry gate at the sidewalk that will lead to the porch. A wood privacy fence is proposed in the rear yard and the remainder of the side yards. This is a 6’ tall rough cedar fence prefabricated in 8’ long panels. The tops of the boards are dog eared. A 6’ wood fence will be in the rear yard and approximately half way (28’ from the front) on the south side and start about 2’ from the front of the house on the north side. The wood fence will feature a 4’ wide gate on the south side of the house as well as a 4’ wide gate centered on the west side. The wood fence will include sections of fence that will be perpendicular to the house to totally enclose the rear yard. The wood fence on the south side and rear of the house follows the guidelines for fence placement. The wood fence on the north side does not follow the guidelines. This house sits 2.6’ (a little more than two and one half feet) from the property line. Part of the asphalt parking lot next door is on this property. The 2’ mark on the north side where the fence is proposed to start would enclose all of the north facing ground floor windows in the privacy fence area. The bottom sills of the first floor windows are approximately 6’ off the ground. See picture on page two of the report with the scale figure that is six feet tall. A six foot wood fence will not add privacy to the ground floor windows when the top of the fence is level with the bottom sill of the windows. It will keep persons 30 inches away from the house. A fence in that location could be an issue when the house requires maintenance. The fence would be creating a space thirty inches wide minus the width of the fence, rails and posts, approximately 24 inches wide. The parking lot to the north is known unknown. Currently, the parking lot is rarely full. According to the owner, he has two spaces rented on a monthly basis. The parking lot could see more use if the parking across Scott Street for the apartments under construction is not sufficient. It could Page 62 of 63 see more use for events (parties) at the apartments. A 6’ wood fence could diminish the effects of headlights shining in the windows when the cars are running and parked facing the building. Placing a three foot tall fence along this side of the house would in effect provide a ladder to access the windows on the first floor. Therefore, a three foot fence is not an option. Having no fence along this side of the house, but starting it at the break in the wall three-quarters of the way back would be an option to enclose the rear yard. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 3. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: December 12, 2016 For additional information, see item at 904 Scott Porch Reconstruction, HDC16-044. Ms. Judy asked if the commission would defer this and the other item to keep them as a package. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to defer the items for additional information. The motion was seconded and was passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 open position, and 1 absent (Kelley). There was a clarification from Ms. Weldon that on proce dural items as a deferral, the majority in attendance is sufficient for passage. Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was delivered to the Commission earlier. Calendar Commissioner Jeremiah Russell made a motion to accept the calendar as submitted. Commissioner Toni Johnson seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 1 absent (Kelley). Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Chair BJ Bowen made a statement that it was a pleasure to serve as Chair for the last two years and that the Commission had accomplished a lot during that time. He thanked all of them for their hard work. Commissioner Russell had brought a lot of ideas to the table and Commission Johnson also brought a lot of information and dialogue. He looks forward to 2017 and not sitting on the hot seat. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:55 p.m. Attest: r Chair Secretary /Staff / -- � -17 Date Date Page 63 of 63