HDC_06 11 2007DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, June 11, 2007, 5:00 p.m.
Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
Members Present: Carolyn Newbern
Wesley Walls
Kay Tatum
Susan Bell (in at 5:25)
Marshall Peters
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Boyd Maher, AHPP
Missy McSwain, AHPP
Terry Burruss
Byl Harriel
Page Wilson
Randy Ripley
II. Approval of Minutes
May 14, 2007
A motion was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters to approve the minutes as
amended and was seconded by Commissioner Kay Tatum. The motion was
approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
1
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
DATE: May 14, 2007
APPLICANT: Terry Burruss, Terry Burruss Architects
ADDRESS: 1011 McMath and 712 E 11th Street
COA Demolish 1011 McMath and warehouse addition to 712 E 11th Street
REQUEST:
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1011 McMath and
712 E 11th Street. The property's legal description
is Lots 7, 8 and 9 of Block 5 Masonic Addition to the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
The house at 1011 McMath Street is a non-
contributing 1900's house with alterations, according
to the 1988 survey. The 1978 Survey lists it a
vernacular cottage.
The Bylites building at 712 E 11th street is known as
the Hunter Methodist Church. According to the
1978 survey, it is a vernacular style building. The Location of Project
west portion of the building is an addition that was added in the mid 1970's. The
original portion of the building, to the east, is a Charles Thompson building, a classic
revival structure. The architectural significance in the 1978 survey is of a Priority III (I
being the highest and III being the lowest) and Historical Significance of Local
significance. Local historical significance means that the buildings are associated with
people of social prominence.
This application is in three portions. The first portion is the request to demolish the
house at 1011 McMath Avenue. The second portion is the request to add an addition
on the north side of the structure at 712 E 11th Street (at 1101 McMath), and new
fencing to enclose the parking area. The third portion is the restoration of the porch on
the south side of the building. This application will go to the Planning Commission
because industrial uses are a Conditional Use Permit in UU zoning.
2
Existing west (front) elevation of 1011 McMath
Existing south (side) elevation of 1011 McMath
Existing west elevation of 712 E 11th Street
Existing south elevation of 712 E 11th Street
Existing south elevation of 712 E 11th Street
Existing east (alley) elevation of 1011 McMath
3
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On February 11, 1999, a COA was
approved and issued to Byl Harrell for the
restoration of building from storm damage
and addition of overhead door on west
wall of the red brick addition.
On November 6, 1990, a COA was
approved and issued to Byl Harrell for
replacement of a metal awning with a
fabric awning.
On November 27, 1989, a COA was Existing west (front) elevation of 1007 McMath from
approved and issued to Byl Harrell for the 1978 Survey
paving of the west parking lot, and
installation of an overhead door in the original church building.
PROPOSAL: This application is in three portions. The first portion is the request to
demolish the house at 1011 McMath Avenue and the sidewalk leading to the house. A
pin oak tree will be added on the site to replace the existing tree that will be damaged
during construction. Poplars or junipers will be planted on the north side while burford
hollies will be planted at the east and west ends of the building.
The second portion of the request is to add a warehouse addition on the north side of
the complex on the lot at 1101 McMath. This addition will connect with the original
church structure and form a "U" shape building. The addition is approximately 30 feet
tall and 30 feet wide on the McMath facade. On the alley side, the addition is 40 feet
wide. Overall length east to west of the addition is 134 feet. New fencing to enclose the
parking area (nine feet tall wood fence to match the other existing) is proposed along
with a rolling gate on the west side of the lot. This addition is for additional warehouse
space.
The third portion of the request is the restoration of the porch on the south side of the
original structure. The original Charles Thompson drawings have been researched and
the porch will be recreated.
Landscape: The streetscape /landscape of this block would be changed dramatically.
Currently, from north to south, there is an oversized vacant lot; at 1007 McMath, the
Gilmore Cottage, a 1899 Eastlake cottage on an oversized lot; the house at 1011
McMath; and then the Bylites complex. The two houses have typical front yard
setbacks with grass and trees. The parking for 1007 McMath is a ribbon drive and has
been overgrown. The parking at 1011 McMath is indiscernible where it used to be. The
building was last used for housing out of town actors /interns at the Repertory Theatre.
The Bylites building has a parking lot on the northwest portion of the site along with a
nine-foot tall privacy fence near the front property line. While the new building would be
4
set back 22 feet from the west property line, the proposed nine foot tall fence and rolling
wood gate would be approximately five feet off of the property line.
Environment: After the construction of the 1 -30 Freeway through this part of town, the
neighborhood changed from single family houses with public uses (church, school and
hospital) to the combination of commercial, multi family and single family uses it is
today. The area has lost five single - family houses since the 1988 survey including the
City Hospital that was located in an English Revival style house. Later construction
includes the Waffle House -- 1960's, 2 apartment buildings on 10th -- 1960's, and the
Pizza Hut in the 1970's. The addition to the applicant's structure was made in the mid
1970's.
The three remaining single family homes in the area are: 923 McMath — a 1910's
residence with alterations; 1007 McMath, a 1890's Eastlake residence; and 1011
McMath — a 1900's residence with alterations. These three are fairly close to each
other, close enough to get a sense of what the neighborhood used to be and establish
the rhythm of the street which would have been similar to other sections of the district.
Footprint: The footprint of the new warehouse addition is not totally foreign to the
neighborhood. This are of MacArthur Park historic district does have larger footprint
buildings, namely the School of Law, a 1910's structure, and the new dorm building
across the alley from this structure. The church itself (the applicant's building) is the
third largest building in the area. The dorm building is approximately 13,000 square feet
footprint and the proposed footprint of the property would be slightly smaller. Although,
with the nine foot tall wood privacy fence / rolling gate and the smaller setbacks, the
footprint could be perceived as even larger.
Roof: The roof is proposed to be flat. There are other flat roofs in the immediate
vicinity: The new dorm building to the east, the existing church building, and the law
school building. These buildings are taller and larger footprint than the proposed
structure. These flat roofs are also farther away from single - family pitched roof houses
than the proposed addition.
Envelope: The building mass would be perceived much larger than the current
structures. While the original church is two stories with a raised basement, the addition
is within four feet of the top of the cornice on the original church. The pitched roof on
the 1970's addition is the same height as the original church, but appears shorter
because of the gable end. This addition at 30 feet wide and just over 30 feet tall will
appear to loom over the neighboring house at 1007.
Skin: The proposed addition is made of EIFS (drvyit). This material has not been used
in the area. The bottom band of the building on the east, north and west sides will be of
split face block in a band that corresponds with the watercourse banding on the original
church. The block will be medium brown color with a gray -beige drvyit. Most
commercial and multi - family buildings in the area are of brick while the single - family
5
houses are of wood. The proposed addition does have "window relief' ornamentation
on the east, west and north elevation. This consists of a sunken panel effect of the
same color of EIFS that will give shadow and texture to the facades.
The proposed addition does mirror a portion of the cornice of the original church and
brings that cornice around the proposed addition. That cornice would also be made of
EIFS.
Holes: The proposed building does not have any windows. There are three doors on
the south side of the building, three pedestrian doors (one on the alley side) and one
overhead door midway on the building at the loading dock. The doors will not be visible
if the rolling wood gate is closed.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
The guidelines state: Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern
of surrounding historic buildings along the street by being similar in:
1. Shape: The overall rectangular box shape of the warehouse addition is not
compatible with the residential structure to the north (1007 McMath) with its
porches, dormers, and irregular plan.
2. Scale (height and width): The height of the warehouse addition is
approximately 30 feet in height. While this is approximately the same height at
the ridgeline of the house at 1007 and the cornice line of the original church, the
length and depth of the proposed addition will make the scale overwhelming.
3. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have a flat roof that is similar
to the original church, dorm building, gas station, and law school. The 1960's
apartments have a mansard roof.
4. Orientation to the street: The width of the warehouse addition is very similar to
the width of the existing house at 1011 McMath.
5. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches, and divisional
bays: There are no entrances, windows, porches, or divisional bays proposed for
the exterior of the building to make it pedestrian friendly. There are "window
relief' ornamentation on the east, north and west elevations of the building.
These will be recessed panels in the EIFS to echo the window pattern on the
east elevation of the original church. See the East Elevation on page A2.0.
These panels would give some ornamentation to the west and north elevations of
the addition.
6. Foundation height: The new building will have a raised foundation that is four
feet above finished grade. The original church has a first floor of about eight feet
above grade and the 1970's addition was built on grade. The house at 1007 has
a raised foundation of approximately 24 inches. On the western face (McMath
Street facade), the raised foundation will be much higher than the house at 1007.
6
7. Floor to ceiling height: The floor to ceiling height is similar to the original
church. However, with no distinction between upper and lower floors on the
exterior of the building, it appears to be a one -story building.
8. Porch height and depth: There is not a porch on this building. The Loading
dock is 4 feet off the ground, but is inside the parking area and does not relate to
the street.
9. Material and material color (if brick — closely matching mortar and brick
color tones, if frames – matching lap dimension with wood or smooth
masonite, not vinyl or aluminum siding): The EIFS on the warehouse addition
is a new material for the neighborhood. The existing buildings are brick and
stucco; the house at 1007 is wood.
10. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses,
corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size: The texture of the
warehouse addition has one thing in common with the original church. The
"window relief' details are the width of one of the original windows, but about one
and one half times the height, from the bottom of the first floor window to the top
of the second floor window.
11. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): While the footprint of the
warehouse addition could be viewed as a mirror image of the 1970's sanctuary
addition, the new warehouse addition dwarfs the house at 1007 McMath in height
and bulk.
Demolition: The Guidelines state: "Preserving and restoring buildings on their original
sites should be a priority for all significant structures, which contribute to the overall
character of an historic district. However, if the use of the land, on which the building is
situated, must significantly change and therefore requires removal of an historic
structure, relocating the building within the district is an acceptable alternative to
demolition.
Many historic districts encourage vacant lots to be filled with historic structures, which
need to be moved from their original sites. This may be appropriate if the building is
compatible with the district's architectural character in regards to style, period, height,
scale, materials, and the setting and placement on the new lot. The new foundation
walls should be compatible with the architectural style of the building and the
surrounding buildings. The Little Rock Office of Planning can advise anyone
contemplating relocating a building of the applicable regulations and permits.
Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or architectural
integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a "contributing" historic
building diminishes the overall character of the district and could jeopardize the National
Register Historic District status."
The applicant has not given any information in the application for justification for
removing this house other than the fact that they wish to enlarge their facilities.
7
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there
were no comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: May 14, 2007
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the Staff report as presented in the
agenda. He showed blueprints of the original porch to the commission. He stated the
recommendation of denial. It was noted for the record that legal notification
requirements have been met.
Byl Harriell, the owner of Bylites, spoke in favor of the application. He stated that he
had owned the company for 17 years and the idea for the expansion was to add
storage. He wanted all of his operation in one place; he currently has storage off site.
He continued that he thought the addition would improve the look of the space. He
spoke of the addition to the church (the red brick portion) was made in the 1960's
instead of the 1970's as the Staff report states. He commented that he wanted to paint
the exterior of the red brick addition and to pave the parking lot, and redo the sidewalks.
The topic of discussion turned to the demolition of the house at 1011 McMath. Mr.
Harriell said that he would be happy to give the house to anyone that would be willing to
take it.
Chair Carolyn Newbern stated for the record that she knew Byl Harriell but does not
have any financial interest in this application.
Terry Burruss, representing the applicant, said that he was trying to maximize the area
available with the new building. He commented that the business was a fixture in the
neighborhood and that they started the process by looking for other available sites.
With the acquisition of the next -door lot, they could build on to the existing facility and
blend with this small area of MacArthur Park. He continued that this part of MacArthur
Park is different from the rest of MacArthur Park and that this expansion would not be
appropriate north of 9th Street. With the existing vegetation, it is impossible to see the
facility when coming from the north.
Mr. Burruss continued that they looked at the heights of the existing and proposed
structures. The height is similar to the church height, the addition, and the house to the
north. He stated that it had EIFS on the top part of the addition, landscaping on the
north side of the property (junipers) to break up the mass. He said that they felt it was a
good approach to meet the client's needs and the possible development to the north.
Mr. Burruss said that he had served on the mansion area advisory committee for 10
years.
Mr. Burruss reviewed the area that the new development was going into: the Pizza Hut,
the Shell Station, the Chinese restaurant, the mansard roof apartments, etc. He said
that he did not feel that the area would be single family, but would probably be multi
8
family and multi story. He continued that the streetscape had changed with the addition
of the commercial structures.
Mr. Burruss said that maybe the house could be relocated to another location. Also,
that the front of the building could be pulled back to the line of the house next door and
possibly save the tree. He proposed the split face block for the base of the building
because he did not think that a third color of brick on the building would be appropriate.
He could not get a brick color to match the original church. He wanted the addition to
be muted. They tried to match the cornice of the new addition with the cornice of the
old building.
Chair Newbern asked if there were any citizens to speak on the application. Page
Wilson stated that he owned three lots abutting to the north of this application. He
expressed that the zoning of the land was UU Urban Use zoning. He continued that UU
zoning is about density and mixed use. He stated that the area is not so much of a
neighborhood anymore. While it is mixed use, it is not designed as such. He supports
the application, density, and diversity in the area.
Mr. Minyard stated that the application is on the Planning Commission Agenda for a
Conditional Use Permit on June 7th. He sated that the property is zoned UU and that a
industrial use requires a CUP. The expansion of the applicant's "grandfathered"
business triggered the CUP hearing.
Chair Newbern commented that the three portions of the application make it more
difficult. Commissioner Marshall Peters asked that Staff separate all the items next time
on separate applications in the future.
Chair Newbern asked if the commission would talk about the portions of the application
separately. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked a question about the location of the
structure and which elevation went where. There was a discussion and the question
was answered.
Mr. Burruss commented that the addition was seven feet off the side property line and
that landscaping would be installed to break up the mass of the building on its north
side.
Commissioner Susan Bell asked if the language of the application would be amended.
Staff answered that the application could be amended and the vote would be based on
that amendment.
Mr. Walls commented on displacing the structure and what the net benefit to the
neighborhood would be. The new addition relates to the church. It is a warehouse with
no windows. He continued that the lack of windows bothered him. Natural light can
save on electricity. He continued that the relation to 1007 is a concern, but the windows
would improve that application.
9
Mr. Harriel was concerned about security and asked about burglar bars. Mr. Minyard
stated that the guidelines state "Security bars should not be visible from the street." Mr.
Burruss added the windows are 10' off the ground. The windows on the building could
help the scale. Chair Newbern added that a security system could help. She continued
that she had a problem with the lack of windows and the drvyit finish. Real stucco finish
could be better.
Mr. Peters said that the security bars should not be visible from the street but could be
inside the windows. He was concerned about the relocation of the house. Mr. Minyard
added that there is an option of glass with wire embedded in it to add to the security.
Mr. Peters added that he would like to see windows in the addition.
Mr. Burruss stated that the original church has real stucco on the west facade and that
they could substitute real stucco on the addition. The addition of more expansion joints
could make the addition better. They could also substitute brick instead of the split face
block. Mr. Walls stated that he preferred the regular gray color in split face block
instead of the other colors.
Chair Newbern brought up the subject of the wood fence height and that it is not within
the guidelines. Mr. Walls added that it matched the existing fence to the south. Mr.
Walls asked what the purpose of the fence was. Mr. Harriel added that the fence masks
a loading door. Mr. Burruss continued that the fence is actually a gate the serves the
loading door beyond. It is not possible to landscape in front of the gate, because it
would not open. He added that the driveway throat width is currently very wide and that
the driveway will be reduced in width along with the additional fencing. The fence will
shield the parking and loading areas. Mr. Walls asked what material the fence is. Mr.
Burruss answered that it will be a wood fence, probably painted cedar.
Mr. Walls commented about moving the fence and if it would improve use of the
structure.
Mr. Walls commented about the setback of the west facade of the addition. He wanted
it to relate to the building at 1007. Mr. Burruss said he could do that. Chair Newbern
asked if the dotted line was representational of the house location. She also asked the
building be set back to the line of the old house.
There was a discussion about the two loading doors on the dock in the northeast corner
of the loading parking area.
Mr. Peters stated that he was not "getting" the mass of the building addition. Mr. Walls
commented that it was the same relation now with the church and 1011 as it is
proposed to be with 1007 and the addition. Mr. Peters continued that landscaping
would not hide the building.
10
Mr. Walls commented on the original porch restoration. Mr. Burruss stated that they
would follow the original blueprints on the restoration. Chair Newbern asked if this was
going to be the primary entrance to the building. The answer was yes.
Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about lights and signage. Mr. Harriell stated that there
would be security lights that will light the interior parking and loading areas at night. Mr.
Burruss added that there would be one light on the door that faces the alleyway.
Chair Newbern asked if the columns on the porch restoration would be wood. Yes was
the answer.
Mr. Peters commented on a typo on page 19 of the report. In the Proposal Section,
second paragraph, the number should be 1011 instead of 1101. Mr. Peters continued
to summarize the changes that would need to be made to the application: moving the
west fagade back, house to be moved instead of demolishing, adding windows,
changing EIFS to stucco, maintaining the hedgerow on the north side, and the fence
height to be six feet.. Chair Newbern added landscaping to the list.
Mr. Walls said that he could understand the desire for the nine-foot fence, but the scale
has an impact on the pedestrians. He continued that the added windows are more
important on the east and west side, the west being more important. The building
needs quality windows, clad windows, to mimic the style of the older windows. Maybe
leaving a recess between the upper and lower windows would be good. Scale is
appropriate, it is lower than the church, and it feels comfortable.
Chair Newbern commented other procedural issues: either approve, approve as
amended, defer or deny. A discussion was held on amending the application in the
meeting with several items being amended with Staff approving the changes at later
date when that applicant brings in the paperwork. Mr. Minyard stated that he did not
have a problem on small changes to an application, but these changes were more than
that. He did not feel comfortable with the scope of the changes and would prefer that
the applicant defer to the next meeting and resubmit to include all of the proposed
changes.
Ms. Bell asked about if the application was denied verses deferred. The answer was
that the application would have to re- notify and reapply if denied whereas the deferral
would not require that.
A discussion was held as to whether the house was structurally sound to move or not.
Mr. Harriel stated that he would give the house to whoever wanted to move it. Mr.
Wilson said that it might be financially unfeasible to move it. It takes a lot of time and
money to do it.
The commission then formalized a list of items to be considered in the deferral and
resubmittal of the drawings.
1. Change demolition of the structure to a good faith effort to relocate the structure.
11
2. Footprint of addition to be moved back to the east to existing building location.
3. Add windows to more closely relate to the original church structure.
4. Substitute stucco for EIFS. The split face block will be in unfinished gray color.
5. Fence to be six feet tall
6. Hedgerow on north side to remain.
7. Clarify parking lot intent (paving and drainage issues)
There was a request for a color rendering of the proposal.
Mr. Harriel asked what the definition of good faith was. There was a discussion that
included notices in the newspaper, sign on the property, notifying the CDC's into the
area, notifying the DNA website, etc. It was decided that the applicant would provide
information of how they have or will market the house at the next meeting and the
commission will decide if it is a good faith effort.
Mr. Walls stated that it was not an issue of the house was given away or not, either way
the house leaves the site. Mr. Peters commented that it did matter, protection for the
integrity of MacArthur Park was important and that he would prefer that the house be
moved.
Mr. Peters made a motion to defer for additional information to include addressing the
seven concerns. Mr. Walls seconded.
Mr. Burruss said that he has sat as a member of the Board of Adjustment and on the
Mansion Advisory Committee and the he complimented the commission for talking with
him and giving them lots of information to consider.
The motion to defer was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes.
STAFF UPDATE: June 4. 2007
The applicant supplied additional documents to Staff on May 30, 2007 that addressed
the concerns of the Commission as outlines in the hearing of May 14, 2007. On those
concerns:
1. Good faith effort to relocate — The applicant will expound on what efforts have
taken place to relocate the structure at the June hearing.
2. Setback changes — The west facade of the addition has been moved to the
location of the existing house which can result in saving the existing tree.
3. Window units — Six metal clad wood windows (6 over 1) have been added to the
west facade, on the north facade, the six window reliefs have been converted to
12 window reliefs, and five window reliefs have been modified to eight on the
east facade (alley facade)
4. EIFS to Stucco — the exterior of the building has been changed to stucco. The
expansion lines have been shown on the facade.
5. Wood fence modifications — The new and existing fence will be six feet tall. The
current landscape ordinance provides that the fence surrounding a dumpster be
two feet higher than the dumpster for screening. If the dumpster is more than six
12
feet tall, the dumpster could show over the fence. Options are 1) let the top of
the dumpster show, 2) add plantings similar to the plantings on the north property
line to screen the dumpster, of 3) leave part of the fence at nine feet tall.
6. Hedge row — the hedge row will be retained as possible.
7. Parking area — The parking area will be paved. The guidelines state that
concrete or gravel is appropriate while asphalt, aggregate or brick is not.
8. The red brick on the church addition will not be painted at this time.
9. The existing night light will remain. No new exterior lighting will be added at this
time.
10. The location of the dumpster is noted.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: While the applicant has addressed the concerns of the
Commission for the overall appearance and design of the structure, Staff does not
support the demolition of the residential unit and does not support the expansion of the
industrial use in this area.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 11. 2007
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the Staff Update and the revised
recommendations.
Mr. Minyard asked questions of the applicant about the dumpster and the paving. Terry
Burruss, the architect for the project, stated that dumpster was 42" tall, so that a six foot
fence would screen it properly. The next size up on the dumpster is 54 inches tall,
which would also be screened by the six foot fence. The paving for the parking lot will
be concrete. Mr. Minyard restated the Staff recommendation of denial.
Commissioner Peters asked if the color rendering was available to view this evening.
Mr. Burruss continued that they preferred to match the existing color of the building's
stucco when applying the new stucco. He also said that they would prefer split face
block on the bottom of the new building instead of brick.
Chair Carolyn Newbern asked about any difference in the east and north side window
reliefs. Mr. Burruss said that he added windowsills on the second floor.
Commissioner Wesley Walls asked if the cornice was stucco or EIFS. There was a
discussion of the crispness of the details and if it would not be noticeable at that height
if it were a different material. The consensus was to make the cornice EIFS with a fine
grit sand finish the same color as the stucco.
Commissioner Walls asked about the clad wood windows. Mr. Burruss said that they
are operable and that they were single hung windows. Commissioner Walls
recommended simulated divided lights on the windows.
Commissioner Walls then asked if they had block on the bottom of the new building.
Mr. Burruss said yes they had asked for split face block on the base of the new building.
13
The base color breaks the facade and they preferred integral color with color mortars
that matched to block. Mr. Burruss said that they would work with Staff on the colors.
Mr. Burruss noted that they had contacted the CDC's and had not had any responses.
Mr. Byl Harriel said that he had sent more than 10 emails and had three responses to
meet to move the house. Epperson had come by to see the house and said that they
would have to cut the roof off to move it.
Staff clarified that Epperson is the guy that moves houses.
Susan Bell entered the meeting at 5:25.
Chair Newbern asked if the commissioners had any additional questions.
Commissioner Peters asked about the status of the survey and if the structure was
contributing or not on the new survey. Mr. Minyard answered that the survey was not
finished and Boyd Maher stated the state office designated if it was contributing or not.
Page Wilson, adjacent property owner, said that he liked the applicant design and that
he looked at the big picture of the area zoned as UU. He was glad to keep a business
in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Kay Tatum asked Mr. Harriell what he would do if he were not approved.
He answered that he would reapply, that he was not planning to leave the area.
Commissioner Walls commented that he thinks that the applicant made a good faith
effort to market the house for moving. Commissioner Peters asked what the price tag
for moving the house was from Epperson. Mr. Harriell responded that it was from 17 -30
thousand not including utilities.
Chair Newbern had questions of AHPP about any things that could be done so that
housing stock could be saved. Mr. Maher said that it did not go anywhere in the latest
legislative session. Commissioner Tatum commented about the structural soundness of
the house. She continued that the age of the house was a factor in the decision of the
demolition. Mr. Wilson asked what the percentage of contributing structures in the
district was. Staff answered the low 70's. Mr. Harriell asked how many 1940's cottages
were in the district. Staff answered "very few ".
Commissioner Bell stated that she liked the design but does not like the demolition.
She appreciates the good faith effort to find a person to move house would be
supportive of the application.
Mr. Burruss commented that the CDC's were not as interested into he house since they
had to crunch numbers and make them work.
14
A discussion about postponing the demolition for sixty days from today's date, the
moving of the structure before that date and the ramifications for the applicant was held.
The discussion included sixty days or ninety days from approval. Ms. Weldon stated
that with the ordinance, that any application deferred ninety days becomes approved.
Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve as submitted with clarifications: a good
faith effort to relocate house, windows with simulated divided lites, EIFS on parapet
(cornice) to maximize depth profile, six foot fencing, and concrete paving in parking
area. Commissioner Peters seconded the motion. Commissioner Peters asked that the
applicant provide to Staff proof of their good faith effort after ninety days of the hearing.
Staff clarified that at the last meeting it was decided that at this meeting, it would be
determined if a good faith effort had been met. Staff contended that a good faith effort
had been met. Commissioner Peters asked for a sixty day moratorium from today's
meeting to move the house before it was demolished. Staff proposed that the applicant
could not get a demolition permit until he pulled his building permit, which would hold off
the demolition of the maximum amount of time.
The motion was amended to state that demolition cannot happen until sixty days from
today's date but could be moved on an earlier date. (Staff comment: Sixty days is
August 10, 2007.) The amendment to the motion was passed with a vote of 5 ayes and
0 noes. The vote to approve the application as amended with conditions was passed
with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes.
Chair Newbern made a statement for the record that she understood the
recommendation of denial from Staff. She did say that they made design changes and
keeping the business in the area was important. Commissioner Tatum stated that
neighbor support was also important.
15
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
DATE: July 9, 2007
APPLICANT: Randy Ripley, Terranova Properties, LLC
ADDRESS: 1421 Cumberland Street
COA Infill duplex - two family structure
REQUEST:
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1421 Cumberland
Street. The property's legal description is Lot 6,
Block 49 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas.
This lot is currently vacant while a wood privacy
fence divides the lot. The Proposal is to build a
duplex that will be sold for owner occupied housing.
This lot is at the northeast corner of 15th and
Cumberland Streets.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On July 23, 2001, a COA was approved and issued
to Myra Ash for demolition of the structure located at Location of Project
1423 Cumberland Street. The house was the subject of the 1999 tornado and was in
disrepair before according to the letter from the applicant.
ANALYSIS:
Landscape: The foundation will be approximately 18" in height on the front porch
elevation with slightly higher on the rear elevation. The driveway will be sloped up to
meet the floor level of the house; no steps are desired between the garage and the
house.
16
View of lot from Cumberland View from east
Environment: The current structures to the north of this lot are three multi-family and
one single - family structure. Across Cumberland Street is the Eastside Auditorium that
is being converted into apartments. Across 15th street, out of the district, is a nursing
home and three single family detached houses that are currently under construction.
See photos at end of report.
Footprint: The footprint of the building will be similar, yet somewhat larger, to the
other residential structures on the block face. The block face is defined as all of the
houses facing one street in a particular block, in this instance, all of the houses on the
east side of Cumberland between 14th and 15th Streets. This duplex has attached
garages that add 880 square feet to the structure. If the garages are subtracted from
the square footage, the footprint is the same as the house to the north. The setback will
be slightly less than the average front setback of the house on the block face. This
setback at 15 feet is the minimum setback for R -4A zoning. The rear setback is 25 feet,
which is the minimum for this zoning district. The duplex will have five-foot setbacks on
the side, the minimum required.
15th Street Elevation
17
Roof: The roof will be architectural asphalt shingles on a gable -on -hip roof. Both the
second floor roof and the roof over the garage /master bedroom wings will be a gable -
on -hip roof. A gabled roof will connect the two. The front porch roof will be a shed roof
covered with standing seam metal roof.
Envelope: The western 30 feet of the house will be two - stories while the balance of the
house to the east will be one story. See 15th Street elevation above.
Cumberland (front) elevation Alley (rear) elevation
Skin: The siding on the house will be Hardie -board lap siding with six inch Hardiplank
trim boards on the vertical edges. The stories will be delineated with an approximate
12" horizontal ban of trim board. On the side and rear elevations of the two story
portion, there is a detail made of Hardie trim to visually separate the two floors.
There is a garden court (outdoor patio) midway along the north and south elevations of
the building. The garden court will have a cedar arbor above with a outdoor fireplace.
The outdoor fireplace will be stained split face block for the exterior facing the street.
The garden court will be enclosed with an iron fence proposed to have a maximum
height of five feet. This five feet height on the south side (with street frontage) will
require a Board of Adjustment variance. The maximum is four feet for a fence with
street frontage. The fence on the north side may be up to six feet in accordance with
zoning regulations and Guidelines.
Holes: The windows on the structure will be two over one windows varying in size from
3'-0 "x5'-0" on the first floor, 2'- 8 "x4'-0" on the second floor in the front and 3'x5' on the
second floor on the sides. The windows will be all-vinyl windows.
18
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
Primary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding
historic buildings along the street by being similar in:
12. Shape: The shape of the structure is compatible with the surrounding buildings.
13. Scale (height and width): The height of the proposed building is similar to the
other houses on that block face. All of the other houses are two story houses
with gabled roofs.
14. Roof shape and pitch: The proposed building will have a 8/12 roof on the
second floor portion and a 6/12 on the first floor portion on the rear of the
structure. The front porch has a 4/12 pitch. The pitches are similar or slightly
less pitch than the adjacent residential structures.
15. Orientation to the street: The entrance to the structure is facing Cumberland
Street as is the adjacent residential structures in the block face.
16. Location and proportion of entrances, windows, porches and divisional
bays: This proposed building is compatible with the surrounding structures. The
garage area on the eastern end of the building has a blank wall.
17. Foundation height: The new building will have a raised foundation of
approximately 18 inches with slightly higher in the rear which is compatible with
the adjacent residential structures in the block face
18. Floor to ceiling height: The height of the first floor is either 9' or 10' feet and the
second floor height is 8 feet.
19. Porch height and depth: The front porch is eight feet deep and is the width of
the structure. This is compatible with the adjacent residential structures in the
block face
20. Material and material color (if brick — closely matching mortar and brick color
tones, if frames – matching lap dimension with wood or smooth masonite, not
vinyl or aluminum siding): The basic siding material is cement fiber -board lap
siding with the same material for trim pieces. The foundation will be of split face
block.
21. Texture (details such as trim around windows, doors, eaves, watercourses,
corner boards, eave depths, etc.) should be similar in size: The drawings show
six inch vertical trim boards on the corners and around the windows with an
approximate 12" horizontal band separating the first and second floors.
22. Placement on the lot (front and side yard setbacks): The setback of the
proposed building is similar to the other residential structures in the block face.
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 (are
usually smaller, skimpy, disproportionate versions of authentic ones) and should be
avoided.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there
were no comments regarding this application.
19
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit within 180 days of approval.
2. Project to be completed within 360 days of obtaining permit.
3. Addition of additional windows and or siding variation /trim details on 15th Street
elevation in area of garage and master bedroom and bath.
4. Iron fence at Garden Court facing 15th Street to be substituted with wood picket
fence to be 4' -0" in height maximum.
5. Confirm ceiling height on first floor.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 11, 2007
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a short statement that the legal requirements had not been
met concerning the application. A discussion was held and it was agreed upon that the
applicant would re- notify the property owners with the July hearing date.
A motion to defer for one month for lack of notice and to allow applicant to serve proper
notice was made by Commissioner Marshall Peters and seconded by Commissioner
Susan Bell and was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes.
20
IV. Other Matters
a. Enforcement updates: Staff noted that he was able to stop a couple of issues
during the month. A package is being put together to train the new officers. A
stop work order has been issued on 1419 Cumberland Street; however there has
not been a lot of work done in the last year on the house. Commissioners noted
activity at 308 Daisy Bates Drive, 1419 Cumberland Street and Dumpster on
Cumberland in the 900 block is interior only. Commissioner Tatum asked about
1020 Rock Street has a dumpster. Staff asked a question about how long a
temporary fence could be up before it became a permanent fence.
b. Bylaw revision has not been prepared at this time.
c. Preservation Plan strategy: The Commission wanted Staff to talk with Mayor
Stodola to set up a committee for the city wide task force for the preservation
plan.
d. Dunbar Survey has had the RFQ posted according to Susan Bell. Chair
Newbern asked that the CTAC folks be notified on it.
e. Chair Newbern spoke of the MacArthur Park groups press release of the
Museum Art and Heritage Trail press conference and the fundraiser.
f. Staff noted the new commissioner was Julie Weidower.
g. Birthday Bash of the 25th year of MacArthur Park to be coordinated with Roger
Williams of the QQA.
h. Citizen Communication — none.
i. Staff and fellow commissioners commented on Carolyn Newbern's tenure on the
commission and thanked her for her time and effort. She commented that a lot of
work has been done in her tenure and that she felt that the commission was on
firmer footing at this time than before.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn by Commissioner Walls and was seconded by
Commissioner Walls. The meeting ended at 6:37 p.m.
Attest:
Chair Date
21