HDC_12 09 2013Page 1 of 23
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, December 9, 2013, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Randy Ripley
BJ Bowen
Toni Johnson
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
Rachelle Walsh
Members Absent: Open Position
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Jill Judy
Page Wilson
Matt Snyder
Doug Melkovitz
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner BJ Bowen to approve the minutes of November 4, 2013
as submitted. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a
vote of 6 ayes and 1 open position.
Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Page 2 of 23
DATE: December 9, 2013
APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy
ADDRESS: 901 - 917 Scott Street
COA REQUEST: Demolition of building and block wall
The applicant did not receive the list of property owners from the abstract company in time to do
the required notices. This item will need to be deferred to a later hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 4, 2013
There was a motion made to defer the item to the next meeting by Commissioner Julie
Wiedower and to charge the deferral to the Commission. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Randy Ripley and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 recusal (Brown)
and 2 absent (Vanlandingham and Boaitey.)
STAFF UPDATE:
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 901 - 917 Scott Street.
The property’s legal description is “Lot 1-4, Block 25,
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This gas station building was built around 1945. The
2006 survey form states: “This 20th century automobile
service station building resembles the prototypical
facilities built in the mid twentieth century across the
country.” It is considered a "Non-Contributing Structure"
to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is for the demolition of building and block
wall to the south on a separate lot.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 23
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE
APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
This building is part of property that has been acquired by
the applicants in 2013. The ownership includes Lots 1-4
of Block 25, Original City. The building sits in lots 2 and
the north half of lot 3 and the block wall sites on the
boundary of lots 4 and 5. The owner also owns lots 5 and
6.
The building is a non-contributory structure in the district.
It is a concrete block building in the 20th century standard
commercial style with a shed roof that has been added at
a later date. The 1939 Sanborn map shows this as a
vacant lot. The 1939-1950 Sanborn map shows this as a
filling station. The two other filling stations on Scott
Street, one at the northeast corner of 9th and one on the
southwest corner of 10th are shown to have above
ground tanks. This location does not show the presence
of tanks on the maps. The applicant has stated that the
North (9th Street) elevation (2006 photo) West (Scott Street) elevation (2006 photo)
East elevation (2006 photo) South elevation (2006 photo)
Aerial Photo – 2013
Page 4 of 23
gasoline storage tanks have been removed from the site. The building has been deemed
“unsafe, unsanitary, a fire hazard and is detrimental to the public welfare” according to the
Warning notice sent by Chuck Givens, Building Codes Manager, City of Little Rock on July 8,
2013.
It is uncertain when the concrete wall was erected on the property line between lots 4 and 5. By
aerial photos, it was there in 1997. There are no files in our records to show that permission
was granted for the erection of the wall. The rest of the block has curbs, paving, and some
stripped parking spaces. On the northeast corner of the site, there is a billboard.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were three
comments regarding this application: two were questions of a neutral nature and one was in
support of the demolition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a demolition permit for the building and concrete wall.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2013
Mark Brown recused himself from the room on this item since he is the owner of the structure.
Brain Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item and stated Staff’s recommendation. He
stated that they had received an email in support of the demolition and 2 phone calls of a
natural question nature.
Jill Judy, owner, stated that they had purchased the property three months ago. They plan to
redevelop that side of the street. She stated it was a non-contributing status.
Vice-Chair Toni Johnston asked what they had planned to do. Ms. Judy stated that they plan to
do residential uses. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked about the timing of the projects. Ms.
Judy staid that they had a letter of intent for the redevelopment and the demolition would occur
soon.
There was a motion by Commissioner BJ Bowen to approve the demolition with all of staff
recommendations. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 open position and 1 recusal
(Brown).
Page 5 of 23
DATE: December 9, 2013
APPLICANT: Dayna Duncan, East Ninth vintage
ADDRESS: 406 E 9th Street
COA REQUEST: Sign
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 406 E 9th Street. The
property’s legal description is “West 80’ of Lot 6, Block 60
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This commercial building was built around 1922. The
2006 survey form states: “Original occupant drug store
which has been remodeled for commercial use and result
of angle cut from building.” “Projecting corner and
decorative metal vents on south elevation are older.
Corner of building was angled 1950.” It is considered a
"Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic
District.
This project is for a sign in the window for a new
business.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a
search of the files.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This application is for a sign “East Ninth Vintage” to be placed in the store front window of the
premises. It is to be 17.5” x 38”. To the right is a photo with the sign superimposed on the
window approximately to scale. The material will be a vinyl applied to the outside of the
window. Currently the sign is not installed, only the text written on the door is there. It will be
removed once the main sign is installed.
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 6 of 23
Historically, businessmen had painted signs in the windows of the shops. While this is not hand
painted, it is in the traditional location for the sign and like the painted signs of old, is easily
reversible and does not damage the historic fabric of the building.
South elevation ca. March 2007
Proposed signage detail Façade today
Page 7 of 23
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 sign permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item and Staff recommendation.
Danya Duncan asked for approval for the proposed sign. Vice-Chair Toni Johnson asked if the
sign was going to be in the middle of the window as shown in the photograph. Ms. Duncan said
that the sign is to be in the middle of the window or maybe slightly higher. She said that she
would not have any other signs.
Commission Randy Ripley asked if the graphic was superimposed. Mr. Minyard said yes and it
was provided by the applicant.
Commission Ripley asked the applicant if the sign was outside. She stated yes. He asked if
there were any other alterations. Other than painting the window trim, door and awning in black
and white, Ms. Duncan said there were no other alterations.
There were no citizens to speak on this item.
A motion was made by Commissioner Ripley to approve the signage at 406 E 9th as described
with staff recommendations. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the motion was approved
with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 open position.
Page 8 of 23
DATE: December 9, 2013
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings
ADDRESS: 1001-1007 McMath Avenue
COA REQUEST: 3-story Mixed Use Development
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 application is for a 3-story Mixed Use Development.
The first building will be at the corner of 10th and McMath
with additional buildings to follow in subsequent COAs.
The first floor will be commercial and the second and
third floor will be residential.
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 what 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 McMath and 10th and had a metal or slate roof also. A one
story addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the ‘Auto House” in the rear that fronted
on the alley.
Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the
1978 survey. It has been vacant since.
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. 2.
Location of Project
Page 9 of 23
1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left) 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This application is required to go to
the Planning Commission and the
Board of Directors for subdivision of
the property into multiple lots. The
northern most lot (which is vacant) will
be divided into multiple lots. The
Planned Commercial Development,
PCD, will be heard at the January 9,
2014 Planning Commission Hearing.
This application is for a three story
building to be located at the corner of
10th and McMath Streets. It will sit 5’-
0” off of the 10th street property line
and 8’-6” off the McMath Street
property line. Note that the surveys
shows that the sidewalk is not on the
property line; it is two and one half feet
off. The bottom floor will house
commercial uses and feature inset
porches on the west and east side of
the building. It will feature a shed roof
pitched toward the south.
There are more buildings to be built on
this site. Each of these buildings will be reviewed by the Historic District Commission before
they are constructed. The Planning Commission and the Board of Directors will review the site
for a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) for the multiple buildings on one parcel and for
the subdivision of land into smaller parcels.
Location of Proposed Building
Page 10 of 23
MacArthur Park has few commercial
structures in the district. There is a
concentration of commercial buildings
along Capitol Avenue in the 300 block; one
at 614 E 6th; some in the 200 and 400
block of E 9th Street; and one at the corner
of 11th and Cumberland. Little Rock, in
earlier development history, had small
nodes of commercial in residential areas.
Walking to the neighborhood market was a
way of life. Currently to the north of the
site, there are two restaurants (in prototype
chain fast food architecture) and a gas
station/convenience store. Having a
commercial/mixed use building may not be
inappropriate in this location.
The cover letter states that “The building is a mixture of farm architecture, with the
understanding that the first floor is commercial in appearance and use. … The exterior is mostly
M-Core Galvalume; it requires little maintenance and is applicable to this concept.” Galvalume
is a corrugated metal siding which would cover the second and third floors of this building, in
addition to the roof. The nomination for the MacArthur Park National Register Historic District
states nothing about a farm context in the district. It speaks of antebellum and Victorian era
homes of differing scales and qualities, but nothing of a farm context. To place a farm building
in the context of the MacArthur Park National Register District would be inappropriate.
The guidelines state on page 53 under Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and
Detached New Construction:
B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS
…related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that
characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the
old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment.
(Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9)
…related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if
removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic
property and its environment would be unimpaired.
(Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10)
New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not
disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood.
Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too
imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic
buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of
historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-
scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new
building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate
versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.)
Site
Page 11 of 23
New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings,
should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design
but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as
traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to
the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and
roof shape.
1. Building Orientation:
The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks
of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be
upheld.
2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in
the area. This includes height and width.
3. Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in
the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to
those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are
similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new
building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of
wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished
with a red or dark color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match
mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite
materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The guidelines state on page 71 under Guidelines for Commercial Structures:
C. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
New…construction… shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale,
and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property
and its environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9)
Construction of new commercial buildings should follow the basic guidelines
established in Section V: Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and
Detached New Construction. Of particular concern to commercial infill are the
building orientation (aligning the storefront with neighboring structures); building
mass, scale, and form; placement of entrances and windows, and building
materials. All should be compatible with the commercial neighborhood.
Page 12 of 23
The commercial guidelines were included as a reference since the building is part commercial
and part residential.
North and East Facades. For other elevations and site plan, see last page of report.
Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The setback of the proposed building
along McMath is 8’-6” off the property line and 5’-0” off 10th street property line. Add
approximately 2’-6” to the inside edge of the sidewalk for the location of the wall. This building
will sit closer to McMath than the Bylites building at 11th and McMath or the gas station
convenience store at 9th and McMath. The setback along McMath is appropriate with the
immediate area.
Shape: The shape of the structure is rectangular and is compatible with the surrounding
buildings. It is similar in shape to the Waffle House (at 908 McGowan) and the law school dorms
(at 1016 McGowan) and between the two in size. The shape of the building is appropriate to
the district.
Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building is between the heights and widths
of the Waffle House and the law school dorms. It is a three story building, a height that is not
common in the district. Most structures are one or two story. However, in this area, the law
school dorm is three stories, the law school is five, and the church/Bylites building is three. The
scale of the building is appropriate with the immediate area, but not the district as a whole.
Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have approximately a 3/12 pitch shed roof.
This roof shape is not common in the district and is not used in the immediate vicinity of the
project. Historic commercial projects of have a shed roof, however, they have parapets and the
shed roof pitches to the rear (short side) of the building. The roof will be covered with “Pre
finished metal roofing; McElroy Multi-COR or equivalent) without gutters or downspouts. No
color was specified. This is corrugated metal roofing. Galvalume is a trademark name for 55%
Aluminum-Zinc alloy coated sheet steel. A color needs to be specified by the applicant.
Page 13 of 23
http://www.mcelroymetal.com/content/products/display.cfm?product_id=25 is the link. The roof
shape and pitch is not appropriate with the district. Typically, commercial structures would have
parapet walls on at least the street facades. This parapet wall would be level or a stair stepped
pyramid shape on the McMath façade.
Orientation to the street: An entrance to the structure is at the corner of 10th and McMath.
The building runs east and west, the same way as the original lot runs. The orientation is
appropriate with the district.
Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches and divisional bays: There are
two main entrances to the building, one on the west and one on the east ends. There is an
additional entrance on the south side of the building in the center of the building.
The west, north and east side of the building will be visible from the street. The south façade of
the building may be obscured by an additional building to be built to the immediate south.
The windows on the west side are a combination of 3’x5’ single pane vertical windows with
3’x1’-6” horizontal single pane windows, sometimes attached to the larger window and
sometimes free-floating on the wall. The windows are in a non-symmetrical arrangement on the
wall. The windows are specified s Anderson “100 Series” “Eagle” or equivalent. Here is a link:
http://www.eaglewindow.com/_Products/Overview.aspx
The “windows” on the ground floor are a 3’-4” by 10’ aluminum storefront window. The link:
http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/catalog/pdf/Storefront_Framing/07_TrifabVG.p
df. Also on that ground floor elevation is a 7’x10’ twin wall polycarbonate wall panels. This will
provide translucent illumination into the interior space. The color of the material comes in clear,
white or bronze. No color was specified. The link is here:
http://www.eplastics.com/Lexan_Thermoclear_Polycarbonate_Polygal_Multiwall_Sheet. For
purposes of this report, the “twin wall polycarbonate wall panels” will be referred to as windows
for the sense that they permit light to permeate the interior spaces of the building and at night,
will allow interior light to be seen by persons that are exterior to the building. The function of
allowing light to permeate back and forth is a main function of a window.
The entry door is specified as a solid “flush” (custom) door. It is assumed that this a flat door
with no raised panels or glass inserts or decoration.
The north side of the building features a more symmetrical arrangement of windows on the
upper floors with ganged windows of vertical 3’x5’ two pane windows, vertical single pane 3’x5’
windows, 2’x5’ vertical single pane and scattered 3’x1’-6” horizontal windows above the larger
windows, sometimes ganged and sometimes not. There are also aluminum store front windows
in a vertical line connected by painted metal accent color panels in the center of the building that
connects the first, second and third floors. The first floor is a combination of twin wall
polycarbonate windows (6’x6’ and 3’x6’) and aluminum store front windows (5 -6”x10’, 2’-8’, and
three 3’x6’ windows).
The east side features 3’x5’ vertical single pane windows and 3’x1’-6” horizontal windows
attached and not attached to the larger windows. The first floor features an aluminum storefront
window of 3’x8’ unless it is required by code to convert that into a doorway. If it is required to
have a door, it would be a Kawneer 350 storefront door as the front. There is also an aluminum
storefront door and window on the southeast corner measuring 3’x7’ for the door and 2’-8”x8 for
the window. The door to that is specified is a Kawneer 350 aluminum storefront entry. The link:
Page 14 of 23
http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/catalog/pdf/Entrances_Swing/07_190_350_50
0.pdf
The south side of the building is comprised mostly of horizontal 3’-0”x1’6” windows with some
2’x5’ vertical single pane windows. In addition there is a 7’8”x2’ and a 2’x2’ window on the
western half of the building. In the center of the façade, there is a larger twin-wall polycarbonate
window that is 8’-0” wide that has two windows floating in the space and an entry door at the
first floor level. The glass windows are 3’x5’ and 1’-6”x3’. The door is 3’x7’ with a transom of
3’x2’ above.
The location of entrances is where they would have been in historic buildings. Many corner
commercial buildings had recessed corner porches. Having a porch that goes the full width of
the building is not a typical historical model. Typically historic windows are vertical in
orientation, not horizontal slits in the wall plane. The building is somewhat divided into two
divisional bays on the north and south façade.
The window size and placement is not appropriate with the district, most notably the horizontal
windows on the south, east, and west facades, polycarbonate windows, and the multi-floor
polycarbonate window on the south façade.
Foundation height: The new building will not have a raised foundation. The foundation is
appropriate with commercial structures in the district.
Floor to ceiling height: The overall height of the building from the top ridge of the shed roof is
37’±. The height between the first and second floor is 12’. The difference between the second
and third floor is 11’. This includes any structural members for flooring and ceiling. The actual
floor to ceiling height was not specified. It is unclear what the third floor ceiling height is. The
floor to ceiling heights is appropriate with the district.
Porch height and depth: These porches are not porches in the sense that they are added
onto the front of the structure, they are created by the subtractive process of removing space.
There will be differing heights of 8’ and 10’ clearance on the porches. The “wraparound”
covered porch that is on the west façade has a depth of 10’ along McMath and a depth of 5’ on
10th. The door is actually 22” from the front of the building. There is a similar porch on the east
side of the building with a 4 or 5’ overhang and the door being 17’± f rom the end of the building.
The location (distance) of the doors to the street is atypical for commercial buildings of the
district.
These porches are supported by painted 3” diameter steel columns at varying angles. The
quantity of these columns has not been specified. It is unclear by the drawing whether the area
under the overhang will be paved. The porch height and depth are appropriate with the district.
On the north elevation, there is noted a “site cast concrete stem wall and bench: 24” height to
coordinate with foundation height of neighboring historic residence.” This detail is not flagged
on the west elevation so it is difficult to determine exactly where it lies and the length. The
applicant needs to provide more information on this stem wall and bench.
Material and material color: The wall sheathing material for the second and third floors is
prefinished metal siding McElroy Multi-Cor or equivalent. This is corrugated metal. Galvalume
is a trademark name for 55% Aluminum-Zinc alloy coated sheet steel. A color needs to be
specified. The link: http://www.mcelroymetal.com/content/products/display.cfm?product_id=25
Page 15 of 23
. There are also painted metal accent color panels of contrasting colors on the walls. This is
described as painted metal accent color panels: custom break metal over plywood. This is
basically bending metal to fit the plywood panels prior to installing on the structure.
Another material that is used only on the first floor is described as Painted Cement panel siding:
James Hardie “Hardi-Panel” or equivalent. Another material that is specified is Sealed Board
Form Concrete. The link is: http://www.jameshardiecommercial.com/hardie-reveal-
panel.shtml#sr=d&m=n&cp=d&ct=-tmc&ts=1386019637. This panel system would give the
appearance of large sheet panels without any battens to cover the joints. It comes in multiple
colors. A color has not been specified in the text. The Sealed Board Form Concrete is a
poured concrete wall in forms. The form boards have been sealed to enhance the finished
texture of the concrete wall. Neither of these finishes has been specified as the final
submission.
The guidelines state:
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.
Above, as the guidelines clearly state, the building materials specified for this project are not
appropriate for the district. Commercial buildings in the district have been historically faced in
brick. Later one story commercial buildings in the 1950’s and 60’s were made of block. The
building at 9th and Rock, which had part of the building removed for the liquor store drive thru,
was faced in brick even before the district was initiated. Having two out of three stories clad in
corrugated metal siding, in a mixture of farm architecture, is not appropriate for the district.
The Guidelines on page 61 state:
PARKING AREAS, DRIVEWAYS, CURB CUTS AND PAVING:
Accommodations for automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood
as possible.
1. Residential Parking:
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
2. Commercial, Office, and Institutional Parking: When houses or buildings are used for
commercial, office, school, church, apartments, or other institutional use, parking should
be located in rear yards. If this is not possible, parking may be in a side yard but located
to the rear of the front wall of the structure. Fencing or shrubbery should screen the
parking area. Parking lots between buildings should align edge screening with the front
façades of adjacent buildings and the side property lines. Parking areas should be
Page 16 of 23
surfaced with gravel or concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick. For security lighting,
please refer to Lighting on the previous page.
3. Curb Cuts:
Curb cuts should be avoided unless necessary to access new parking areas. The new
curbing should be constructed to match the historic or traditional curb cuts in the district
in size, color, materials, and configuration.
Landscape: The plans show four parking spaces on the south side of the historic house off a
ribbon driveway. The driveway is comprised of 4’ wide concrete ribbons for the wheels and a 3’
wide grass strip in the center. Staff did research earlier for ribbon drives and found that the
average total width was 82.75” versus the 132” specified on the plan. The driver’s side strip
was an average of 27.13” versus 48”, and the center grass strip was 31.19” versus 36. This
center grass strip ranged from 20”-37” with the most common, median and mode, being 33 and
34” respectively. There are also four spaces with 90° parking of the alley with a two foot
concrete apron separating the alley from the gravel parking spaces.
The parking area will be covered in 1/8” minus gravel. This is similar to pea gravel in size.
There is no mention of an edge border on the gravel parking pads.
The parking area locations are in conformance with the guidelines and no new curb cuts would
be constructed. The center strip of the ribbon driveway is labeled as gravel, but shown in the
same symbol as sod or planting areas. The applicant needs to provide a detail on the
separation of the gravel and sod/landscaped areas.
Environment: There are commercial and institutional buildings on that side of the park from
9th to 630. None of the current buildings are built to the property line. With the mix of those
building and the few single family houses and apartments, the three-story mixed use building is
appropriate.
Dumpster pad enclosure:
The dumpster pad enclosure is located on the southeast corner of the site with the maximum
distance from the street as possible with access to the alley. Fencing is not specified other than
a 6’ privacy fence. The applicant needs to clarify exactly what a 6’ privacy fence entails.
Signage:
There is a sign for a tenant on the north side of the building under the porch facing north. It is
specified in the cover letter that it will be painted or vinyl graphic mounted on the window glass.
The area specified for the signage is 5’-6” wide and 2’-2” tall. As the tenants may change over
time, it is Staff’s opinion that the Commission approve a location and maximum size for the sign
as stated above and allow the change in text to occur without further COA solely for a change in
sign text. The applicant has not asked for any other tenant signage.
The street numbers are larger than typical in the historic district. They border on signage instead
of building identification as other street numbers do. The view that is shown in the west
elevation will only occur when one is standing in a particular location because the lower part of
the sign is 10 feet inset on the back of the porch and the top part is at the front of the building.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were two
comments on the application of a neutral nature.
Page 17 of 23
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. The above project is not compatible with the historic
district. The roof shape, pitch, and materials; the window sizes, placement and orientation; and
exterior sheathing materials are not appropriate.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item with Staff re commendation. He
mentioned that a lot of the criteria are appropriate, but the roof, windows and exterior sheathing
was enough to have a recommendation of denial.
Vice-Chair Toni Johnson asked a question about the boundary of the district. Mr. Minyard
answered that the MacArthur Park Historic District was south of 9th and included the Shell
Station, the Waffle House building, the Pizza Hut and the apartments. He continued that only
three buildings are in the block where the application is; the barrister dorms, the yellow house
and the Bylites building. She asked when the Barrister dorms were built. Mr. Minyard
responded about 2006 or 2007. She asked if they conformed to the guidelines, and Mr. Minyard
stated that the Commission at the time worked with them to make it conform as much as
possible. More discussion about the building was held.
Commissioner Randy Ripley asked about the site. Mr. Minyard responded that it was a vacant
lot. He asked about what was in the yellow house. Mr. Minyard said they would need to ask the
applicant.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked if the applicant conferred with Staff in any way other than
submitting the application. Mr. Minyard stated that a letter was sent with additional questions to
clarify the application. He continued that the answer to his question was no.
Page Wilson, the applicant, spoke concerning the application. He stated that David Anderson
lives in the yellow house. Mr. Anderson and Matt Snyder did most of the design. He stated that
the application was for the entirety of the property, not just the vacant lot. They are going to
keep the yellow house but he was trying to juxtapose the new into the historic. The PCD will be
one area, without multiple lots.
He read a prepared statement as his presentation. This statement is in the project file. He said
that the three items that needed to be talked about were the windows, roof and exterior
materials. He then talked in detail about the roof, windows and siding. The farm vernacular is
the same as other houses he has built. The first floor will be his office along with Mr. Snyder
and Mr. Anderson. This building will be a record of our time, which is a Forum Journal quote.
Mr. Snyder, an architect, working on the project stated they were not applying for all of the
buildings now. They were not trying to make the building look old. The shape of the structure
works for what we are doing. He stated that the siding in one monolithic form is like clapboard
siding. He talked about the base (first floor). On the east and west face, they minimized the
windows. The south elevation will not be easily seen with the next building.
Vice-Chair Toni Johnson asked to clarify that the west elevation faces MacArthur Park. Mr.
Snyder stated that was correct. He clarified that the slab door would be wood and stained or
painted with no decorative trim.
Vice-Chair Johnson also asked if the yellow house was in threat of being demolished. Mr.
Wilson said no. Financially, they will save it and take entirety of property into a PCD as a whole.
The cheapest and most economical way is to k eep the house. He talked about juxtaposing the
Page 18 of 23
new and old together. He stated that he could go 8 stories by right before you hit the airport.
Vice-Chair Johnson asked if he owned the site. Mr. Wilson said it was the size of three lots
including the house.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked him to describe the exterior of the structure. Mr. Snyder
described it as monolithic, it reads as volume with punch-outs. The M-core siding gives a
similar texture as wood siding. The horizontal windows are if they took the window out and left
the transoms. Mr. Wilson stated that the south side will not be as visible because of the next
building to be built. He also stated that they would have to install a fire sprinkler if they have
more windows on the south side. He continued that the polycarbonite on the sides and stairwell
corridors is stronger than glass.
Commissioner Boaitey commented about the siding. Mr. Snyder said it was 36” wide pieces
with 2” ribs. Mr. Wilson said that the materials would be durable over time and that it makes a
rain screen. It has a real high SRI – Solar Reflectance Index and that it reflects the sun and
reduces heat gain.
Commissioner Randy Ripley asked if they were trying to get LEED certification. Mr. Wilson said
no and that they were not even obtaining Energy Star status.
Commissioner Mark Brown asked about the first floor materials. Mr. Snyder said it was either or
on the materials. Mr. Wilson said that the Commission had approved fiber cement board
before. The appraisal will determine what material will be used; probably paneled hardie-board
will be used on the first floor. The polycarbonite acts as a screen for the flex space on the first
floor and the stairwell.
Commissioner Rachelle Walsh asked about signage. Mr. Wilson said that there were not any
ground mounted signs. The may want to run vertical signs instead of horizontal on the glass. A
hypothetical name has been shown. She asked if all of the businesses will share the same
space. Mr. Wilson said yes.
Vice-Chair Johnson asked about the scale of the metal panels imitating the clapboard. Metal is
not listed in the guidelines. Other materials are appropriate. Why use metal? She asked if it
could be changed. Mr. Wilson said that they had priced brick on another type of building and
the brick was too costly. The choice was not just economic, but was a style that they liked.
They are trying to do “in our time and our place” and would rather all buildings no look the same.
Vice-Chair Johnson commented on the windows on the south side. Mr. Snyder said the fire
codes dictated a maximum percent of openings before sprinkling the building would be
necessary. Heat from the sun on the south side is also a factor. The red metal is reflective.
Commissioner Ripley asked if the windows were fixed glass. Mr. Snyder said that not all are
operable, some are, and some aren’t. Commissioner Ripley asked about glazing. Mr. Snyder
replied they are 1/2” glass. With sun treatment? Mr. Snyder said no. Mr. Wilson talked about
the views to the north and views from to highway and downtown. Mr. Snyder said that
historically, in denser areas, there have been fewer windows on the sides of buildings. Mr.
Wilson and they were metal clad windows for the fire rating.
Vice-Chair Johnson commented on the stemwall. Mr. Snyder said it was 7‘-6” long bench on
the edge of the building, a low wall to sit on. Mr. Wilson wanted to express the corner more.
Page 19 of 23
Commissioner Ripley said that the liked the building architecturally. The context related is very
much subjective. The mass and the setback are okay. He stated that architects can make the
philosophical connections and stretches between different materials and shapes and forms, but
a novice cannot make those connections after the building is built and they wonder why it looks
like it looks. He advocates for urban migration, our charge is to have architectural appropriate
structures. This mixed use building works well, but he struggles with those points.
Mr. Wilson said that the next one might not be metal. He looked through the NPS guidelines
and metal was used on exteriors elsewhere. He spoke of the Villa Marre mansard roof.
Commissioner Boaitey said that the location is significant and that it is not on an edge. He
spoke of the entry on 9th Street. He agrees with Commissioner Ripley on some points. He is
not sure what this would look like – a big metal box shining like that. He worried about the
quantity of the metal siding. Mr. Wilson gave examples of buildings in Chicago and colors used.
Mr. Snyder said that the purpose of the HDC is to preserve historic structures. He stated the
immediate area has no identity or scale and that they are the urban trying to repair fabric with
site plan.
Commissioner Ripley said the juxtaposition old to new is good, but they must have context. The
basic struggle is massing and context.
Mr. Wilson said that he struggles with the guidelines not being prescriptive or rules.
Commissioner Ripley said that the HDC has never tried to squash development.
Commissioner Brown said that it was going to be a gorgeous building and would be perfect in a
marine environment. He stated that he is not convinced that it is appropriate for this area. He is
concerned about steel poles on the porch areas.
Debra Weldon of the city attorney’s office clarified a statement concerning if Commissioner
Brown owned property in the area of influence of this application. He stated no, but they were
“neighbors in same village”.
Rhea Roberts, Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association, stated to not confuse the Secretary
of Interiors Standards with these guidelines. The Guidelines are spelled out. The QQA is
willing to work with the applicants. They are sympathetic of good design, but concerned about
windows, siding and roof.
Byl Harrell, of Bylites, said that he has been there 23 years. There was a discussion on
architectural details. By granting the dormitory which brought more cars, changes to McMath
Avenue with rerouting of traffic, one of his concerns is deliveries to the new commercial uses.
He would love to see changes but worries about traffic and deliveries. Mr. Minyard spoke that
this application is going to the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors. The use of a
building in not reviewed by the HDC, but parking is something that is reviewed by both, but the
comments on parking would probably best be addressed at the Planning Commission. He
stated that both commissions work together on the proposed changes.
Doug Melkovitz spoke in support of the application. He spoke that if you look to the north and
see other buildings the proposed building fits in with all of the buildings outside of the district.
He spoke of a vibrant downtown. He owns property on the other side of 10th street from the
application site.
Page 20 of 23
Mr. Minyard asked questions of the applicants to clarify points of the application before the
commission voted on it. Below are the answers from the applicants.
The color of the roof is galvalume roof in grey/silver. Mr. Wilson asked to amend his application
from this to a standing seam roof with the ice/snow guards. They would not put gutters on the
building. They officially amended their application. They conversation continued on what the
snow/ice guard looked like.
The polycarbonite panels will be in the white or clear panels, not bronze.
Commissioner Ripley stated that he assumed that enough of the floor plan had been
established to determine where the windows go. Mr. Wilson said that they will have 4 units
upstairs with stairs in the center. The area with the 3 windows is the bedrooms. The closets
are on the south side.
The Hardi board panels as specified on the ground floor are a 4’x8’ with no batten.
Gravel parking areas with be separated from the landscape areas with steel edging.
The wood privacy fence around the dumpster would be a 6’ tall with six inch pickets. The
applicants stated that they would try to do landscaping instead of the fence. They plan to start a
recycling program and would prefer not to put a dumpster in the rear.
The applicant amended the application on the roof for materials of a standing seam roof with a
distance between seams of 12-16” with a snow/ice guard both in grey color and the ribbon drive
reduction in in width.
Mr. Wilson does not want to debate the QQA, but the guidelines are based on the Secretary of
Interiors Standards, and they are relevant.
Commissioner Boaitey made a motion to approve the item at 1001-1007 McMath as amended
with the standing seam roof and the ribbon driveway. Commissioner Ripley seconded. The
motion failed with 1 aye (Ripley), five noes, and 1 open position.
Vice-Chair Johnson asked Mr. Minyard to describe to the applicant what the next step for him
would be. He explained that the same application could not be filed for 12 months. A
significantly different application could be heard before that time. A significantly different
application would be a change in exterior siding, roof changes, etc. He could be heard in
January if the applicant had his information ready immediately.
Mr. Wilson asked if the commissioners that voted no would state why they did. The
Commission then spoke about why they voted the way they did.
Commissioner Boaitey thought the application was great but his concern was the exterior siding.
He said that he could not get a good sense of what it would look like on this mass. He was
unsure what this building would look like in the future with the other proposed buildings.
Commissioner Bowen thought the building material specified were not appropriate for the
district. He said the windows were also an issue for him, especially the vertical slit windows.
Page 21 of 23
Vice-Chair Johnson stated that she loved that it was a mixed use building that he was doing
with offices below and residences above. She thought it would improve the area. She
commented on several aspects of the building that was good. She could not get on board with
the Galvalume siding. She thought there were other materials that are specified in the
guidelines that would make the building appropriate and just as beautiful. She suggested brick
or Hardi-board.
Commissioner Ripley, who voted in favor of the application, stated that he could appreciate
what the others were saying. He liked the building and thinks it works.
Commissioner Brown commented that he thought his presentation was excellent. He had
pushed him to think differently. He continued that if there had been a deferral for a month, he
may have voted differently, but it is hard to know. The siding, the pillars and the shed roof is not
appropriate for the community. If your plans are changed a bit, they could be approved here.
Commissioner Walsh stated she also stated that she appreciated the mixed use development
and thought it would be good for the neighborhood. She voted no mainly because of the metal
siding and the other materials. The shed roof was also inappropriate.
There was a question from Mr. Snyder. Ms. Weldon stated that the public hearing for this item
was closed and any further comments can be made in the citizen communication section of the
hearing.
Page 22 of 23
V. Other Matters
QQA presentation on budget item
Rhea Roberts, Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association (QQA), spoke of the work by the
QQA, the Historic Preservation Alliance of Arkansas (HPAA), and the Downtown Neighborhood
Association (DNA), and other concerned downtown people to address demolition problems.
The demolitions will impact loss of districts there loss of tax credits. The committee is making
progress. One issue is the need for additional staff at city level to work on historic preservation
issues. They are trying to make that happen and they have met with the Mayor and the City
Manager. They are suggesting that CLG funds be used as an interim for funding part of the
staff position.
They also are looking into the “ReLocal” program by Place Economics. They are trying to get
the consultants here. That would address specific ways to prioritize spending of demolitions
dollars to invest in a plan to strengthen neighborhoods.
2014 Calendar
A motion was made by Commissioner BJ Bowen to approve as submitted. Commissioner
Randy Ripley seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes and 1 open position.
Enforcement issues
Enforcement issues brought to the attention of the Staff was the Arkansas Arts Center (AAC)
and the commercial store on East 6th street. Staff has researched the large banners on the
north side. The AAC will need to come to the Commission for approval for th ose. The fence
item at 11th and Commerce has been resolved with the agreement that the owner continue to
install boards on the south fence as he did no the north. shrubs will be planted in front of the
fence to hide it. Commissioner Boaitey expressed dismay at Staff for not pursuing the
enforcement item.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff wrote 3 COCs this month and copies were given to the Commissioners.
Citizen Communication
Vice Chair Johnson asked for citizen communication keeping in mind that the discussion on the
previous item has been closed.
Page Wilson posed the question if you had a piece of property downtowns and it was zoned
Urban Use, he said by right that he could go eight stories tall. He was wondering how it would
be accepted by the community with taller brick building with a commercial roof and if it would be
preferable to buildings that were smaller while saving green space and saving a 1900’s
structure. He said that he could get a demo permit by right. He stated that the Commission
missed an opportunity here. If someone has a plan like that, you may want to give the plan
more attention because the alternative could be much worse. He restated that this was Urban
Use zoning and spoke of other interested parties for the property. He spoke that no on in room
is willing to put up money or planning to build something on those lots. He stated since 1950
the lots have been vacant.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 7:12 p.m.
Attest:
Chair
6ZA, './
Secretary/Staff
Date
Date
Page 23 of 23
r� - 10- (1