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: