Loading...
HDC_09 10 2018Page 1 of 14 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, September 10, 2018, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Chair Ted Holder Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell Dale Pekar Amber Jones Frances McSwain Members Absent: Lauren Frederick Robert Hodge City Attorney: Sherri Latimer Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Page Wilson Jim Engstrom Patricia Blick Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the August 13, 2018 minutes as amended with one misspelled word. Commissioner Frances McSwain seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). 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 14 DATE: September 10, 2018 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: 1001 McMath Avenue FILE NUMBER: HDC18-013 COA REQUEST: Exterior Siding PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1001 McMath Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 12, Block 5, Masonic Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This mixed use building was completed in spring of 2016. It is considered a "Non-Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is a result of a court order in William Page Wilson and Paul Page Dwellings, LLC v. Little Rock Historic District Commission, case number 60CV-15- 4202. That order is at the end of this staff report. As per the court’s order, Mr. Wilson has submitted a new application to the Historic District Commission (HDC). However, the only issue, as the application shows, is review of the metal exterior siding that was installed contrary to the Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) issued to Mr. Wilson. The building currently has Hardieboard cement fiber board on the North and West sides of the building. It has vertical metal siding on the East and South sides of the building. Mr. Wilson’s application seeks Commission approval of the building’s exterior siding as it currently exists. 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 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. Location of Project Page 3 of 14 Judge Piazza’s Order mandates that “For purposes of the New Application, neither of the parties shall be entitled to rely upon prior proceedings before the Commission, or the proceedings before this Court.” PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On March 10, 2014, a COA was issued to Paul Page Dwellings for a three story mixed use building with HardiePlank exterior siding on all four sides with brick on a portion of the bottom floor. A foundation only building permit was issued on February 5, 2015 with a full building permit issued around April 1, 2015 based on that approved COA. The applicant then filed for a COA to change the siding material to metal siding. That hearing was held on August 8, 2015 and failed. That decision was appealed to court on September 9, 2015. In his order filed on October 4, 2017, Judge Piazza remanded the item to the HDC and ordered Mr. Wilson to submit a new application. This item is the submission of that new application. Construction continued with Multi-Cor metal on the east and south sides and Hardi-Plank on the north and west sides and, on approximately May 20, 2016, a temporary Certificate of Occupancy was issued. This COA will be not evaluated under the new Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings standards since the building is finished and occupied. It will be evaluated under Section III Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES (December 2016 version): This application is to seek approval of Multi-Cor Galvalume siding on the south and east side of the building that was installed in opposition to the approved COA. Galvalume is a trade name for steel siding that has a coating of 55% Aluminum-Zinc alloy that is available in various colors and profiles. The siding covers part of the first floor above the brick and all of the second and all of the third floors on the south and east sides. The height above the ground for the Multi- Cor varies from side to side and varies on each side. The lowest is 4’-4” above the ground on the south side and is up to 10’ on the west side. Most of it is 8’-8” or 10’-0” above the ground at its lowest points. In reference to Little Rock Code § 23-120(d), the August 10, 2015 Staff Report states on page 6: The Architectural Style, General design, Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Scale and Massing of the building was reviewed and approved in March 2014, fifteen months ago. This statement above is still true. With this application, the only design factors that are pertinent are Wall Areas and Façade. The definitions of wall area and façades according to Little Rock Code § 23-77 are: Wall areas means the vertical architectural member used to define and divide space including the kind and texture and exposure of wall sidings and trims, and the location, number and design of all window and door openings. Facade means a face of a building. Existing south and west elevations Page 4 of 14 This application is not seeking to change the location or number of any window or door openings. This application only concerns the siding as it currently exists. (Note that all prior applications for COAs for this building were reviewed under the old guidelines which were issued in July 2013. The application currently before the HDC will be reviewed under the current MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction, issued December 2016.) Since Section III, Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation in the current Guidelines primarily pertain to the rehabilitation of historic buildings rather than the modification of newer buildings; it is appropriate to first review the application in reference to Arkansas law and city ordinances. In the sections below, the application will be reviewed based on state and local laws first. The statute addressing the determination of a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) states in relevant part: The commission shall determine whether the proposed construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving, or demolition of buildings, structures, or appurtenant fixtures involved will be appropriate to the preservation of the historic district for the purposes of this subchapter, or whether, notwithstanding that it may be inappropriate, owing to conditions especially affecting the structure involved, but not affecting the historic district generally, failure to issue a certificate of appropriateness will involve a substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the applicant, and whether the certificate may be issued without substantial detriment to the public welfare and without substantial derogation from the intent and purpose of this subchapter. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-209(b)(3). The building is located on the southeast corner of McMath Avenue and East 10th Street. The siding on the building is Hardi-Plank on the north and west sides and Multi-Cor metal on the east and south sides. The north side faces 10th Street and the west side faces McMath Avenue. The south and east sides do not face the street but are still visible from the street. It is Staff’s opinion that the issuance of a COA would be a substantial detriment to the public welfare with the use of Multi-Cor Galvalume siding on a primary building. The National Register Historic District (as well as the local Ordinance District) is named for MacArthur Park. MacArthur Park was originally a Federal Arsenal and the Arsenal building was built and ready to store munitions by 1840, one hundred and seventy-eight years ago. The thirty plus acres associated with the Arsenal became the first park and was named City Park by 1890. This building at 1001 McMath fronts onto the park and is visible from the Arsenal building. Of the 29 buildings that are in the park or face the park, 21 or 72% are contributing. The Arsenal building shown in green on the map below is a National Historic Landmark, the highest level of historic structures. To allow metal siding on a principal structure within view of the arsenal is not preservation of the district as stated in state law. The statute addressing a building’s interior features states: In its deliberations under this subchapter, the historic district commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action under this subchapter except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, Page 5 of 14 restoration, moving, or demolition of buildings, structures, or appurtenant fixtures in the historic district obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. Ark. Code Ann. § 14-172-211. Contributing and Non-contributing map with buildings in blue and labeled with a C as contributing It is Staff’s opinion that cladding a three story building that faces onto MacArthur Park is obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. The MacArthur Park National Register Historic District has the earliest period of significance in the city starting in 1840. This is earlier than the East Markham district by 30 years and the Governor’s Mansion district by 40 years. The McArthur Park district is comprised of mostly brick clad and wood clad buildings. Metal siding was considered only for out buildings during the time of significance and usually only for the façades that do not face the street. City ordinance addresses exemptions to considerations for certificates of appropriateness: Nothing in this division shall: Prevent the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, or demolition of any exterior architectural feature in the historic district, which is not visible from a public or private street. Page 6 of 14 Little Rock Code § 23-116(2) Existing north elevation Existing south and west elevations Existing north and east elevations Existing north and west elevation This building is visible from a public street on all four façades as evidenced in the photos shown above with the street in view on each photo. The north and west façades are covered with Hardieboard cement board siding. The south and east façades, those currently covered in metal siding, are visible from the street. The applicant proposes to construct buildings to the east and south of the current building as shown on page 16 and labeled on the sheet as P3. Currently there is nothing to the south of the building and a rain garden to its east. The metal siding will always be visible from the street even if the proposed buildings are constructed. To clarify, the document on page 16 was prepared as a part of a zoning action Z- 3218-A in 2014 to rezone the land from Urban Use (UU) to Planned Commercial Development (PCD). That zoning category (PCD) is customized for each site and dictates what type of uses (in this case residential and commercial); location, size, height, and setbacks of buildings; parking; signage; etc. via an approved site plan that is part of the zoning process. The site will be developed to that standard within allowances specified by the municipal code. By constructing the first building at 1001 McMath, the zoning for this site is assured and will not change. However, there is no requirement that any other building be constructed. No other building is ever required be built on this site to maintain the current zoning. There is no mandate by the city to have the owner or subsequent owners complete the other phases. So an Page 7 of 14 argument that the building will not be visible once the Phase 2 building is built to the south could be misleading since the applicant is not required to build it. PCDs are revisable upon review of the Planning Commission and approval by the Board of Directors. There is no guarantee that this plan will always be exactly as shown in this graphic. In fact, the plan has not been followed thus far with the rain garden being installed directly to the east of 1001 McMath in the footprint of where the Phase 4 building is supposed to be. Additionally, in 2016, the applicant sought approval of two infill houses from the HDC contrary to the approved PCD. This COA was withdrawn by the applicant. If the buildings in Phase 2 and 4 (south and east of 1001 McMath) were built as specified by the approved site plan, the south and east façades of 1001 McMath would still be visible from t he street. This ten foot separation between the buildings is the same ten foot separation between neighboring houses when built to the five foot setback on each lot. It is easy to see the side façades of houses and structures within the MacArthur Park Historic District and it will be easy to see the south and east façades of 1001 McMath in the future even if additional buildings are built on the site. A portion of the area between 1001 McMath and the proposed building to the south is shown as an area for condensing units and could be screened in the future. However, a six foot or shorter fence to screen air conditioner condensing units would not block the view of the top of the first floor, or the second, or third floors. The metal siding would still be visible from the street. The ten foot separation between 1001 McMath and the proposed building to the east is shown as a walkway. Again, even if a gate or fence was approved and constructed at a later date, a portion of the first floor and the second and third floor walls would still be visible from the street. The visibility of façades facing other structures can be evidenced by reviewing other such buildings in the district. In the photos below, according to surveys in the files, there are a total of 10.5 + feet between 909 and 913 Cumberland. These are two story buildings with a 6’ privacy fence between them. The photos were taken from the sidewalk. These photos demonstrate that the sides of the structures are still visible with 10.5 feet of distance between them. 909 Cumberland Street on left 913 Cumberland Street on right City ordinance addresses considerations the HDC cannot make when reviewing an application for a COA: 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 Page 8 of 14 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. Little Rock Code § 23-119. City ordinance addresses the criteria the HDC must consider when determining whether to issue a COA: In making its determination, the commission shall consider without being limited to the following criteria: (a) Proposed repairs, alterations, new construction, moving or demolition in the historic district shall respect and relate to the special character of the district. Changes shall be evaluated on basis of: (1) The purpose of this division. (2) The architectural or historic value or significance of a building and its relationship to the surrounding area. (3) The general compatibility of proposed changes. (4) Any other factor, including visual and aesthetic considered pertinent. Little Rock Code § 23-120(a). Staff believes that the use of Multi-Cor siding on this structure is incongruous with the historic aspects of the district and do not relate to the special character of the district. As stated before, materials with this profile have historically only been used on outbuildings placed in the rear yards. Each national register historic district is unique with different architecture and periods of significance. A period of significance is the time frame when most of the buildings were built or when the area was at its’ peak. This national register historic district has the earliest period of significance in the city starting in 1840. This is thirty years earlier than East Markham national Register Historic District and forty years earliest than the Governor’s Mansion. This broad expanse of the Multi-Cor siding, over 80’ long and three stories high, is considered not compatible with the predominant brick or wood lap siding buildings in the district. One might argue that the site of 1001 McMath and the applicant’s proposed buildings should be treated differently from the rest of the district since it is located between I -30 and McMath Avenue and thus is separated from the rest of the district. This supposition, however, is incorrect. The fact is that the district was named for MacArthur Park. The district is that area that surrounds the park on all four sides. Proposing that this area should be reviewed under different standards or criteria than other areas in the center of the district is not in compliance with the governing legislation. This area, by state and city law, is to be reviewed under the same standards as the rest of the district. City ordinance addresses the criteria the HDC must consider when evaluating the compatibility of changes to the exterior of a building: (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. Page 9 of 14 (5) Roof area. (6) Entrance area. (7) Wall areas. (8) Detailing. (9) Facade. (10) Scale. (11) Massing. Little Rock Code § 23-120(d). Building materials in the area of influence were inventoried and are as follows: 1007 McMath is a contributing structure wood frame house with horizontal wood siding on all four sides and on the gable. The building at 721 E 11th is non-contributing (Bylites). It is a combination of brick and stucco. Some stucco may not be over existing brick, particularly on the westward facing portions of the taller, older portion of the building. Barrister Court Apartments at 1017 McGowan is non-contributing which has all brick façades on all sides. The two apartment buildings to the north at 718 and 720 E 10th are all brick with mansard roof accent on the front façades only. They are non-contributing to the district. The house at 923 McMath is contributing. It has aluminum horizontal lap siding. The separate outbuilding behind has what the owner has described as “particle board siding” which is a composite material of some sort. The Pizza Hut at 913 McMath (which faces McGowan Street and the freeway) is a combination of brick and vertical wood siding. The siding has vertical grooves in the material every eight or ten inches. Instead of board and batten where the thinner width battens are on the outside of the finished wall, this siding is similar to batten and board, where the boards, not the battens, are on the outside of the wall. Outside of the area of influence, the China Garden restaurant at 908 McGowan that was built as a Waffle House is painted brick with flat panels of unknown material. The Shell gas station at 721 E 9th is painted brick. The Bowen Law School is brick with cut stone accents. Little Rock Code § 23-120(d) instructs the HDC to consider materials in the area of influence when considering Wall Areas. The definition of wall area includes wall siding and trim. Within the area of influence, the primary building materials are brick and lap wood siding or a material that mimics lap wood siding (923 McMath). The cover letter states that “The vertical hill and valley profile mimic the board and batten seen in District, usually a cementitious material, wooden board or a standing seam material. The siding has a smooth finish, similar to cementitious building products like Hardie Board.” Page 10 of 14 The Multicore Galvalume metal that has been installed on the structure has a corrugated profile in a rounded consistent curvilinear profile. See graphic to the right. The width between the ridges is 2.67” and the depth of the ridges is 0.875”. Every two and two-thirds inches, the pattern repeats. They rhythm of it would be regular and constant. The board and batten profile is quite different in proportions and scale. See graphic to the right. Regionally, the wider material called “boards” are typically a 1” by 12” or wider and the thinner material called “battens” are typically a 1” by 2” or a 1” by 4”. This means there is a repeat of the pattern every twelve inches or greater. This is an angular pattern consisting of right angles and no curves. The scale of a pattern that repeats itself every 2.67” versus 12” is not the same scale. The rhythm of wide boards and the thin battens is not the same as the Multi-Cor. If this was Morse code, the Multi-Cor rhythm would be dot dot dot dot where the board and batten would be dot dash dot dash. Multi-Cor does not closely resemble the proportions, nor the rhythm, nor the scale of the board and batten siding. See images below of board and batten photographed in the district. All of the photos have been enlarged and cropped to show an approximately 36” wide photographic image. Battens 10” on center Battens 12.25” on center Battens 12.25” on center Ridges 2.67” on center On page 9 of the current guidelines under III Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, it states: Rehabilitation may include the following types of work: Protection and maintenance of historic features that survive in generally good condition Repair of historic materials and features that are deteriorated; patch, splice, consolidate, or otherwise upgrade the existing material, using recognized preservation methods whenever possible Replacement of historic materials and features with new materials because deterioration is so extensive that repair is not possible. New materials shall match the old in design, texture, and other visual qualities. Replacement of missing features should have historic documentation; if not available, interpretations of similar elements in the area may be considered. Multi-Cor profile Board and Batten profile Page 11 of 14 This paragraph does not apply to this application since the siding in question is not a historic material. On page 9 of the current guidelines under III Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation, it states: Buildings, which are designated as “contributing” to a National Register Historic District, or “significant” as a National Register Historic Landmark will be held to a higher standard than “non-contributing” structures. The HDC will consider the designation when it evaluates rehabilitation proposals. This building is non-contributing to the district. While the above-referenced guideline statement says that the contributing buildings will be held to a higher standard, it does not imply that applications for non-contributing buildings be held to a lower standard than state and city laws mandate. This building can be reviewed against the Secretary of Interior Standards. The standards listed in the Rehabilitation Standards on page 9 of the Guidelines are numbers 2 and 5. #2 The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. #5 Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. However this is not a historic building, so these two do not relate as closely as they should. Other Secretary of Interior Standards may apply to this situation better since this is a non- historic building. #3 Each property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. #9 New additions, exterior alterations or 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. #10 New additions and adjacent or 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. The Secretary of the Interior Standards are attached as Appendix E in the current Guidelines. The Guidelines state the following on page one: Historic district guidelines are based on design principles and preservation standards used by historic district commission nationwide and on federal standards for rehabilitation of historic buildings. In addition to explaining the philosophy and value of historic preservation, these guidelines provide illustrations that note the architectural styles and landscape features that are the character defining elements of the MacArthur Park Historic District. These are, therefore, the elements that should be retained and protected by the property owner. Solutions for rehabilitation and recommendations regarding new construction are provided by these guidelines to help preserve the historic Page 12 of 14 character of the District and to allow change that is appropriate to the District’s historic integrity. This building is clearly “of its time” as evidenced by the overall form of the building and the asymmetrical arrangement of windows and panels. The Hardi-Plank siding is also of its time since it was invented in the late 20th century. The addition of the building in question to the district does not destroy historic materials associated with the house at 1007 McMath, which is on the same piece of property. The new building is differentiated from the old. If the building under consideration was ever removed, the essential form and integrity of the historic portion of the property, 1007 McMath, would be unimpaired. In order to address issues that were raised due to the Applicants’ previous applications, the City of Little Rock hired a consultant. That consultant will present their findings relevant to the current application to the HDC. None of the consultant’s findings have ever been presented to the HDC or to the circuit court in the course of litigation. Therefore, any information the consultant presents to the HDC is neither part of any prior proceeding before the HDC or before the court. SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS: In summary, Staff opposes the application because, as presented earlier, the application is in opposition to state law, city ordinance, and the Secretary of Interior Standards. The facades covered in Multi-Cor will always be visible from the street even if additional buildings are constructed on the site. The use of Multi-Cor panels is not a substitute for board and batten siding because of differing scale and rhythm of the materials. When evaluated against the area of influence and the district as a whole, the application is not appropriate. Staff believes that for the Multi-Cor siding to remain would not be preservation of the district and is obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: On July 30, 2018, the applicant stated in an email that he would not have his notifications mailed by the prescribed date. He has asked for a deferral. Staff recommends approval of a deferral to the September 10, 2018 HDC hearing to allow for proper notice to be served. COMMISSION ACTION: August 13, 2018 The Commission approved a motion made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Rob Hodge to defer the item to the September HDC meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Jones). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: September 10, 2018 Ted Holder, Chair, made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. Page Wilson verbally stated that he wanted to defer. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that Page 13 of 14 she was going to recuse of her own choice on this item since she has upcoming work with the applicant on a tax credit project. A motion to defer to the October 8, 2018 meeting was made by Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Commissioner Dale Pekar. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 recusal (Jones), and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Secretary/Staff ( Date Page 14 of 14 1...--J' /i --0 --2or Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff stated that a letter would go out to the owners at 401 E Capitol Avenue concerning the fence. An update was given on 523 E 8th Street. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was distributed to the Commission earlier. These included projects at 624 Ferry, 1010 Scott, 500 E 9th, and 915 Cumberland. Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:07 p.m. Attest: