Loading...
HDC_11 13 2006DEPARTMENT 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, November 13, 2006, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall 1. Roll Call A Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Carolyn Newbern Wesley Walls Kay Tatum Susan Bell Marshall Peters Members Absent: None City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present: Brian Minyard Tony Bozynski Citizens Present: Boyd Maher, AHPP Stephan McAteer Page Wilson Sandra Taylor Smith Rick Redden Morgan Manning Charles Evans II. Approval of Minutes a. October 9, 2006 A motion was made by Commissioner Kay Tatum to approve the minutes as amended and was seconded by Commissioner Wesley Walls. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness a. MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History, 503 E Ninth 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: October 9, 2006 APPLICANT: Stephan McAteer, MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History ADDRESS: 503 East Ninth Street COA Fountain replacement REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 503 East Ninth Street. The property's legal description is "That part of the northwest quarter of Township 1 North Range 12 west Section 11 lying east of the Quapaw Line and west of McAlmont Street & north of E 13th Street and that part of the southwest quarter of Township 1 North Range 12 west Section 2 lying east of the Quapaw Line and west of McAlmont Street & south of E 9th ST located in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The application area is a small portion of the park that is set back over 150 feet to the south of East 9th Street. While the Arsenal Building is a contributing structure, there is no pictorial evidence of the I. Location of Project fountain that previously occupied the space. Local folklore states that a park curator hand fashioned a fountain in this spot in the 1920's. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On August 21, 2006, a COA was approved and issued to The Arkansas Korean War Veterans' Memorial Foundation for a revision to the memorial. On October 6, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to The Arkansas Korean War Veterans' Memorial Foundation for a memorial to be located to the east of the fountain's proposed location. 2 The design guidelines do not specifically indicate any specific details when it comes to the construction of new fountains. The Design Guidelines state the following in the VI Design Guidelines for Site Design A. Landscape Features: Landscape features, that are original or historic (50 years of older), and that are important in defining the overall character of the property, should be identified, retained, and preserved. Some examples are sidewalks, curbs, and parking areas; brick or stone retainer walls; stepping blocks; furnishings such as lights, fences, or benches; landforms such as terracing; historic plant material, beds and planting areas; water features and garden art. Staff would interpret that historic fountains and pools would fall under this objective. ANALYSIS: MacArthur Park is home to numerous memorials predominantly located on the south and east sides of the complex. These memorials do not necessarily detract from the architectural significance of the MacArthur Park Military Museum because their individual locations do not obstruct its views from the north, northeast, or northwest. This fountain is proposed to be installed in the center of an existing pool that is located almost on axis to the north of the centerline of the Arsenal Building. There is no pictorial evidence of the fountain that previously occupied the space. Local folklore states that a parks curator hand fashioned a fountain in this spot in the 1920's The proposed fountain is a four tier cast aluminum fountain measuring 81" tall and 33" wide. It has a black -Verdi finish. The selection was made because it was felt that the fountain was compatible with the period of when the park was created (1893). Proposed fountain NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 3 SEP -7 -2006 09:39A FROM:MACARTHUR MUSEUM OF 3764593 T0:3716863 P.3 MACARTHUR MUSEUM OF ARKANSAS MILITARY HISTORY TO: BRIAN MINYARD FROM: STEPHAN MCATEER SUBJECT: MACARTHUR PARK FOUN'I'AIN DATE: 9/7/2006 CC: The MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History proposes to put a cast aluminum fountain in a small pond in front of the museum, which is located in the historic Arsenal Building in MacArthur Park. The pond is located approximately 300 fret north of the museum, between the moseurn drive and 9th St. The pond rncasuras approximately 32 feet in length and 11 feet in width. The fountain would be placed in the middle of the pond, which has a depth of approximately five feet. T'he proposed fountain is a four tier, cast aluminum fountain measuting 81" in height, 33" in width and weighs 200 pounds. It would have a black-verdi finish. This fountain was selected because it is felt it would be most appropriate for the time period in which the park was created (1893). In consultation with the Little Rock Parks Department, it was determined this fountain would 6t the existing space and plumbing. The museum has no photographs of any fountains which may have existing in the pond, although local folklore states that a parks curator hand-fashioned a fountain in the 1920s. Cover letter from applicant 4 SEP-7-2006 09:39A FROM:MACARTHUR MUSEUM OF 3764593 TO:3716063 P.2 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Pax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: 1. Date of Public Hearing:1 day of &a& kr" - 200 &at 621" p.m. 2. Address of Property:` 3. Legal Description of Property: - -"- f 14Ea '7' 11- r ur 1^ 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements ? ?? 0 8. Zoning Classification: P P, Is the proposed change a permitted use? �Sp No 9. Signature of Owner or Agent: (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA. applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ❑See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application 5 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: October 9, 2006 Debra Weldon, of the city Attorney's office stated that notification was met as set by this Commission at the September 9, 2006 meeting. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. The Commissioners did not have questions of Staff at that time. Stephen McAteer, Director of the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History, made a short presentation. He stated that a fountain had been in place in the pool in the 1920's. At that time, a caretaker fashioned a fountain in place. Currently, a board member of his museum has made a donation to add a fountain to the pool. Currently, a single stream of water shoots up in the middle of the pool. That would be replaced with the fountain. A Victorian style fountain was chosen because that was the era of the creation of the park. There were no citizen comments. Commissioner Susan Bell brought photos of the site and noted that the pool was off center to the building. She added that adding a fountain to the center of the pool would add to the off center -ness of the pool. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked if there was plumbing in the pool. Mr. McAteer added that there was. Chair Carolyn Newbern referred to the Guidelines and noted that in the Federal period, buildings were a symmetrical form. She had handouts that she passed around and gave to Staff that showed the structure of landscapes with curved gardens and drives with axial lines which were symmetrical. Fountains were placed on axis lines. She continued that it bothers her to put a fountain off center. She added that a fountain would enhance the building and grounds. She asked Mr. McAteer if he had discussed moving the fountain and pool. Mr. McAteer said that the brickwork around the fountain predates the sidewalks that are exposed aggregate. The pool is historic. Originally, the Arsenal complex has 30 structures, now it only has one. He stated that there was no discussion on moving the pool and would be resistant to doing so. He did say that they would follow codes specified on the depth of the pool. He would fill it in to 30" to meet codes. Commissioner Walls said that it was a good point to make that typically it would be symmetrical and asked what it would be like to counterbalance the location of the fountain to the reality of the off centered pool. 6 Commissioner Kay Tatum asked if the pool was in good shape. Mr. McAteer said that it needed to be lined and to pour a foundation for the fountain. Commissioner Bell asked if there were to be changes to the brick or the sidewalks. Mr. McAteer said no. Chair Newbern stated that this pits a known historical structure against the Guidelines. The placement of the fountain in the center of the pool would further compound the earlier error of being off axis. She continued that most folks do not know that there is a pool, and that the fountain will add to the knowledge of a pool. She respected the financial aspect of the cost of moving of the pool. Mr. McAteer noted that this land is Parks and Recreation land and that he is before the committee because his board member donated money to install the fountain. The board member and himself were trying to make it look better. Commissioner Bell asked if the pool was filled. Mr. McAteer said it was not. Commissioner Walls talked about the off center fountain and the fact that the sidewalk, which is on axis, forms a datum line against which everything is judged. If the sidewalk were not there, this conversation would not be had. Chair Newbern stated that it was off just enough to be an issue. Staff Brian Minyard asked the applicant and the Commission if it made a difference if the fountain was shorter. Mr. McAteer stated that he was not wed to this fountain. Commissioner Walls asked Mr. McAteer what his view on the symmetry was. He answered that the building was the most important thing. It is an under utilized pool. It the pool is to be moved, it will not be the museum that does it. Chair Newbern asked if the fountain could be redesigned to have a different water feature that would be on axis. She suggested maybe an urn or something in character. Commissioner Walls said that this fountain is similar to other fountains in the area. It is formal in design, vertical in nature, and implies symmetry. Mr. McAteer commented that it is a rather long pool; 33 by 11 feet and that they can find an alternate fountain and come back to the Commission. Mr. McAteer said that the Arsenal building is just part of the park. This part of the park has been opened up (some removal of trees) and that the board member wanted to add something to this part of the park. Chair Newbern listed the options at this point: vote for approval, vote to deny it, or vote to defer the application for one month with exploration of alternatives. 7 Commissioner Tatum asked it the fountain could be self- contained and what if the fountain was placed outside of the pool. Mr. McAteer stated that it cold be self- contained. Chair Newbern said that the commission should defer to the city codes on the depth of the pool. Commissioner Walls stated that the pool is not centered, and that the pool world not be moved. He continued that he could not say for certain where the fountain should go. He continued that the likes the fountain and that the sidewalk reinforces the axis. Mr. McAteer asked to defer his application to bring back options to the Commission. Debra Weldon suggested the deferral. Commissioner Walls made a motion to defer for cause to consider alternate fountains. Commissioner Tatum seconded and the deferral was granted with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent for a period of one month. Boyd Maher, AHPP, stated that there were different periods of significance: the park creation, the arsenal building, the pool, etc. He asked why the fountain was Victorian. With all of the different periods of significance, with the suggestion of all of the other hardscape features as a guide, why not consider a contemporary fountain instead? Mr. McAteer stated that from the Commission, he was hearing the symmetry of the fountain and pool. STAFF UPDATE: November 13, 2006 The applicant has provided an alternative fountain to amend the application. The proposed fountain is shown at the right. The fountain, which features an urn, is 33 inches high, and 27 inches in diameter. The pedestal measures 32 inches high and 17 inches square. It has a black -verdi finish and is made of cast aluminum. This fountain is proposed to be placed in the center of the pool. The Secretary of the Interior's Standard #2 states: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alterations of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The Secretary of the Interior's Standard #5 states: Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. During the last hearing, a discussion was started about the location of the pool and that it was not on axis of the building and further comments of moving the pool or greatly modifying it. This is in direct conflict with the Secretary of the interiors Standard #2. Staff interprets this standard to mean the Arsenal building as well as the grounds. This 8 pool, while not specifically listed, dates from the 1920's. At eighty plus years old, it certainly is a historic structure in itself and merits protection by the commission. It was discovered by Staff that the location of the pool "straddles" the axis lines due north of the building and a line drawn from the intersection of Sherman Street and 9th Street and the center of the building. If the building and grounds were designed in a strict Gothic layout, the pool would be on axis with the building, the building would be on axis with the centerline of Sherman Street, and the circular drive in front of the building would be a symmetrical arc on axis with the building, but that is not the case. The pool was added later. It is not the desire of Staff to have the pool moved, reshaped, or otherwise altered in a way that would detract from the historic nature of the pool. While the exposed aggregate concrete walks are not historic (at this time), they are part of the history of the pool. The application before the committee is the location of a fountain in the center of the pool. Alternate fountain Secretary of the Interior's Standard #9 states: ...related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Secretary of the Interior's Standard #10 stated: ...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. It is Staff's opinion that the new fountain when placed in the center of the pool will fulfill Standard #9 in the fact that the pool had a fountain at one time in it's history, and that the fountain will be discernable from a historic fountain in the materials used and the finish of the fountain. It also fulfills Standard #10. The fountain will be placed on a concrete pedestal. The height of the pedestal will not exceed the finished level of the sidewalk surrounding the pool. The finish of the concrete should be smooth on sides and top. The size of the pedestal will be determined by the base of the fountain. The pool may need to have a new coat of plaster inside to make it watertight. White plaster would be appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of either alternative fountain. 9 COMMISSION ACTION: November 13. 2006 A brief presentation was made to the Commission concerning the Staff Update by Brian Minyard. Staff checked with the building code section about the depth of the pool and this is not an issue. A swimming pool is a different matter. Commissioner Wesley Walls commented that there was no right or wrong on the fountain, there were so many structures missing in the park, and the original intent of the fountain is not discernable. There were no questions of Staff by the Commissioners. Chair Carolyn Newbern restated the possibility of suggesting a different design and that it designing the application should not be done by the commissioners. The Commission is to react to the application as filed. There was no historical evidence. Stephen McAteer stated that either of the two fountains would be acceptable to the donors. Commissioner Walls asked which fountain he preferred. Mr. McAteer commented that he would let the donor have the final decision. He did note that the pool had to be sealed. Chair Newbern asked if the Parks department would do the engineering for the pedestal. Mr. McAteer said yes. Chair Newbern asked if there was public comment about the application. There were none. Chair Newbern pointed to some historical evidence in the pool. She stated that she had revisited the situation. She acknowledged that the pool was a historic pool that dates to the 1920's. A lot of the planters and fountains in that era were handcrafted of quartz/rock combinations. She asked Mr. McAteer if he found anything that would fit into that time frame. Mr. McAteer said that he interpreted the pool at the turn of the century instead of the 1920's. The donors and he chose a Victorian era fountain. Chair Newbern stated that Secretary of the Interiors standards of not going to an earlier period when there is note evidence of that period. Commissioner Bell produced a photo of the 1920's fountain. She had found it in the Pulaski County Historical Review Volume 32, page 54, fall 1984. It appears to be a birdbath fashioned out of the quartz/rock combination. Chair Newbern exclaimed "Wow "! Chair Newbern stated that it looked more like a birdbath than a fountain. Commissioner Marshall Peters stated that fountain #2 would be more in keeping with the area and that it would not be possible to replicate the original fountain. Boyd Maher, AHPP, stated that now that you have pictorial evidence of what was there, you could duplicate it. When there is documentary evidence, then it is appropriate to attempt a reconstruction. 10 Chair Newbern stated different alternatives for the applicant: bring forth other options for the fountain design, have a vote to approve or deny the fountain as submitted or defer the application. Commissioner Peters made a motion to rebuild the fountain to be rebuilt as the photo if possible or go with the second fountain with staff approval of the final choice. Mr. Minyard asked to clarify the motion as to whether that motion gave staff approval to approve any fountain. Debra Weldon clarified that the applicant would have to request a deferral, not the commission asking for it. Commissioner Peters withdrew his motion. Mr. McAteer restated that this was not a museum project. A Board Member had donated the money to enhance that pool and there is a finite amount of money in the budget for this. Two fountains, one in the center of the pool and one in the center of the sidewalk were not in the budget. Chair Newbern asked the applicant if a deferral would allow the donor to explore the option of replicating the fountain. Mr. McAteer stated that he wanted an appropriate fountain, but was not interested in another months delay. Commissioner Bell stated that with the delay, the applicant might be able to find another fountain that was appropriate and maybe less expensive. Commissioner Peters asked if the applicant would verbally amend the application to add the option of replicating the existing fountain with staff having final approval. Debra Weldon, of the City's Attorney's office, stated that it was possible. Mr. McAteer amended his application to add the replication of the original fountain. That would be that all three fountains would be in the application. Mr. McAteer stated that the main issue of the last meeting was the location of the pond and that it was off centered of the building. That topic had not been discussed this evening. Commissioner Peters stated the pool should stand on it's own, (meaning that the pool location and size was not the issue.) Ms. Weldon stated that the second fountain is on the table for a vote. By submitting an alternate fountain, he amended their application and that second fountain is the one to consider when voting. If the applicant wanted to amend his application to include a handcrafted fountain, he would have to do so. Commissioner Walls asked if the commission could add a third option of the original fountain. A discussion followed. The result of the discussion was that fountain number two as shown in the staff update was the final amended fountain on the application. The applicant did amend his application to include the option of a handcrafted quartz rock fountain. Commissioner Peters made a motion to approve the application as amended to include as an option a recreation of the fountain as shown in the new evidence or the fountain 11 as submitted. Final design to be approved by Staff. Commissioner Walls seconded. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Staff is to provide a copy of the photo to the applicant. 12 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. 1. DATE: November 13, 2006 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: 1422 South Rock Street COA 5 attached Townhomes REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1422 South Rock Street. The property's legal description is Lot 7, 8 and 9 of Block 49 of the Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. These three lots are vacant. This application is for new construction of five attached townhomes with a detached garage structure. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On January 7, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Raymond Rogers for demolition of a four - plex structure that was severely damaged by the Location of Project 1999 tornado. Several other structures in the 1300- 1500 blocks of Rock Street were demolished around that time because of severe damage by the 1999 tornado. PROPOSAL: This project is for new construction of five attached townhomes. The townhomes are two storied with two bedrooms, two and one -half baths with about 1300 square feet. The width of each townhome is 25 feet. The townhomes face Rock Street with a combined footprint of 125 feet north -south and 34 feet east -west. Immediately to the west of each unit is a private courtyard (20 foot depth) with a two-car garage 13 beyond. The garages are accessed from the alley with off street parking areas to the west of the garages between the alley and the garage. The footprint is as such: The front setback from Rock Street is 25 feet, the setback from 15th Street is 15 feet, from the alley is 33 feet, and from the north property line is 10 feet. The proposed roof is flat with a small parapet wall with "membrane technology" roofing system. The building envelope is two stories tall on the living quarters (approximately 23 feet plus foundation height) and one story tall for the garages (approximately 12 feet plus foundation height). The exterior of the building will be scored and non - scored stucco, James Hardie Hardiplank lap siding, and James Hardie Hardipanel solid panel siding. The front door will be a wood door with a full view window with a full height sidelight. All windows on the buildings will be "low-e" metal casing windows similar to modern storefront window design. The Rock Street elevation of each townhome will have a large window and door on the first floor leading onto the walled patio. The second floor will have a two -pane window over the first floor window /door. A two -pane window will be over the front door. All of these windows will be fixed sash. The 15th Street elevation will have five windows, three on the first floor and two on the second. The first floor windows will have a vertical three pane windows with casement transoms. In addition, on the first floor, there will be two sets of two horizontal windows in the kitchen, where the backsplash is located and over the upper cabinet units. The second floor features two horizontal windows. The garage features one horizontal window. The north elevation features five windows, two on the first floor and three on the second. All of the windows on this elevation are fixed sash. The first floor has a one- pane and a two -pane vertical window. The second floor has two one-pane and a two- pane vertical window. The garage features one horizontal window. The interior units obviously do not have side windows. Outside green spaces will include green fences for privacy at the rear of the garage, A green fence is two wire fabric fences places 6 inches apart. When vines are planted between the fences, the vines will grow up between the two and create a "green fence." The green fence is an alternative to a trellis. A permeable parking pad will be for additional parking between the garages and the alley. The gravel used will be angular gravel (sometimes referred to as chat.) the gravel 14 is small size and gray in color. Between the additional parking and the alley, there will be additional plantings along the east edge of the rear alley. From Rock Street, there will be individual entrances to each townhome and individual sidewalks to Rock Street. The building will be on a raised slab with steps leading to a front stoop. Each unit will have a walled patio to the left of the front door with the height of the wall being no taller than 4' high when measured from the interior finished floor. This patio is off the kitchen area and is accessed only from the kitchen. The walled patio is set back 15 feet from the property line. Street trees will be planted with the aid of "Tree Streets." The second story will feature rectangular box bays that extend 2'-4" out and partially cover the stoop area. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Secretary of the Interior's Standard has this to say about infill development: ...related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. (Secretary of the Interior's Standard #9) ...related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. (Secretary of the Interior's Standard #10) The new Guidelines state: New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish- scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to 15 the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. 1. Building Orientation: The fagade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld. 2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width. 3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor -to- ceiling, porch height and depth.) 4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses, corner boards; eave depths, etc.) The building orientation of the proposed building is the same as the others on the block and historically what was there. The buildings face Rock Street with the garages accessed off the alley. Mac Arthur Park does not have a uniform setback. The front and side setbacks are similar to the existing setbacks of the neighborhood and are compatible with the two structures on the block. Other outbuildings in the block are set closer to the alley right -of -way than the proposed garage. A garage structure can be built on the alley as long as the side setbacks are met. This proposed building relates more to the mass and scale of buildings outside the Mac Arthur Park district than within the district. In the neighborhood, the proposed building relates more to those south of 15th Street, and more specifically, those apartments to the southeast of the site. While they may have the street fagade length of the Eastside 16 Auditorium or school building, these structures are four stories instead of one and two storied buildings. Even though the majority of buildings in the neighborhood are one or two story buildings, the mass and scale of the proposed units may overpower the neighborhood. The district does have a number of apartment buildings that are similar in size and shape to the proposed units: multi- family units at Sherman and 7th Street, along the 400 and 500 block of 6th Street, and those on Commerce across from the Arkansas Arts Center. The proposed units are larger than most of the units, but smaller than the Park Place Apartments across from the Arkansas Arts Center. The Eastside Lofts and School, Kramer School, and the Parris towers on Cumberland do not relate to the building form, scale, or mass of the proposed units even though they are multi-family units. There are five flat roofs in the District south of 1 -630. Two are on the Eastside Lofts and auditorium, one is an office building, and the last is the apartments at 1520 Commerce, known as the zigzag apartments. One new structure, the Fish Factory, has a flat roof also. Thirty -three structures have pitched roofs and one has a mansard roof (Villa Marre). The front entry doors of the proposed building are facing Rock Street, which is the traditional placement. Windows located on the front of the building could be considered to be "ganged" but are not of a typical proportion to be compatible with the majority of the district. The windows on the second floor of the dwelling and on the garage (very horizontal) are not compatible with the district as a whole. The five rectangular second floor bays that extend over the front stoop could be considered similar to other bays on historic structures such as box bays on Craftsman houses that housed stair landings, or bays on Queen Anne structures. The primary facade is divided into divisional bays with the five box bays and walled patios. Most other multifamily structures do not have the divisions like this. The units will be on a raised foundation. The height of the foundation is yet to be determined. There will be steps to the front door, a couple of steps down to the rear private courtyard, and steps up to the garage. The garage will approximately be on grade at the garage door. Floor to ceiling heights will be similar to the District. There will be nine -foot ceilings on both the first and second floor. The depth of the stoop is not determined as of this time. Rock Street elevation with building materials noted. 17 Building materials are varied on this project. The bulk of the dwelling units are covered in James Hardie products. This material is noted on page 64 of the new guidelines as an acceptable new building material. It is a cement fiberboard. Hardiplank Colonial Smooth eight inch lap siding, with a 6 1/4 exposure will cover the majority of the structures. This is shown on the elevations as the horizontal lines representing the lap siding. Hardipanel Vertical siding smooth finish is used to the side of some windows on all elevations and to the side of the front doors exiting to the walled patio on the front of the house. It is depicted on the elevation as the darker square to the side of the windows. Stucco will be used on the front and back door areas and on the rectangular box bays on the front and rear. The stucco will be scored on the second floor bays and will not be scored on the lower level by the exterior doors. Lap siding and stucco have been used in the District on multiple homes and buildings. The proposed units are not compatible with the majority of the district concerning the lack of eaves, absence of corner boards, minimum trim around doors and windows, and the flat roof. The guidelines state that "New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings." Staff feels that this building is too dissimilar to others in the district. Though it may have similar features and elements to other buildings in the district, (bays, orientation, detached garages, two stories, etc.), the proposal as a whole is not compatible with the district. The length of the fagade and the flat roof contribute to the non-compatibility of the district. While the guidelines do not support reproductions of historic buildings, it does support those types of infill projects that reference older buildings while utilizing new construction materials and techniques. The guidelines also state that "New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape." While the detached shared garage structure fulfills the bulk of this statement, Staff feels that the design, form, and materials of the windows are not compatible with the district. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 18 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 723 West Markharn Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: /Q- tr^- L~) 1. Date of Public Heariug:� day of �� 200 � at � p.m. 4. PrEppa O er am Addres. ,Phone, Fax): Lacil ` .-9Y 5. Owner's Agent: (Phone/Fax /E -mail) nn 5. Project Description (additional pages nine be added). ('14Y1.vu G c! if `/al tl,,r t 13C "�C + r ^• 7. Estimated Cost of Improvements *_ ' fJL1 1 8. Zoning Classification: k - � 9, Is the proposed change a permitted use? 6r No 9. Signature of Owner or Agent: _ . {E (The owner will need to authorize any Agent or person representing the owner at the public hearing). NOTE: Should there be changes (design, materials, size, etc.) from the approved COA. applicant shall notify Commission staff and take appropriate actions. Approval by the Commission does not excuse applicant or property from compliance with other applicable codes, ordinances or policies of the city unless stated by the Commission or staff. Responsibility for identifying such codes, ordi- nances or policies rests with the applicant, owner or agent. (This section to be completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑Approved with Conditions ❑See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Little Rock Historic District Commission ♦ Department of Planning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 ♦ Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application 19 September 18, 2006 Environments for observing nature, entertaining, relaxing, working and living instill the creative process of PaulPage Dwellings, LLC. We strive to create home designs with access to outdoor space that is built -in —not just an afterthought, and marketable neighborhoods that create green areas that connect with a neighborhoods' history and culture. Inspired by everything from century-old buildings to utilitarian structures, our sustainable, urbanism approach to traditional neighborhood development generates living free from conventional ideas. A home should respond to its particular place, enhance a site or neighborhood and be a natural partner with the environment. We believe that public places, neighborhoods and individual structures are the stage on which life of a community is expressed and that the design of these places can have a strong effect on its growth. Our single and multi - family residences enhance simple green building techniques while still possessing all of the modern conveniences of today's home. Inspiration can be found anywhere. For PaulPage Dwellings, LLC it is found in century-old buildings, farm structures and even the southern dogtrot. After spending 28 years as a rice and soybean farmer in eastern Arkansas, my strong interest in pragmatic solutions and appreciation of modern design led to the creation of a urbanism, environmentally-friendly home design trend that connects the old with the new. With these beliefs, PaulPage Dwellings, LLC proposes to build a multi-family residence, consisting of five two-story adjoining town homes around 1300 square feet with detached garages, interior courtyard and space for outdoor living. This concept of "IntoNvn Living" will have a 25 foot setback on Rock Street, 1.8 foot setback on l h Street, 33 foot setback to the rear alley entrance and a 10 foot setback that includes green space to the north of the property line. The building materials will include: stucco, James Hardie siding products, low -e metal casing windows and a distinctive flat -roof using membrane technology. These materials reflect the revival of mid-20th century and a new optimism of the future ofMacArthur Park Historic District i.e. (apartments at 418-422 15th Street). Inside the town homes we will continue to stress user - friendly green technologies like: CFL lighting, low-volatile paints, European shower heads, self-programmable thermostats, IKEA kitchens and scored concrete floors. Our outside green space will include green fences for privacy at the rear of our garages, a permeable parking pad (gravel), plantings along the west edge of rear alley, which will be the entrance and exit. We also, will continue to work with Tree Streets to plant small trees along the city right of way on Rock Street. Cover letter from applicant 20 Our "Intown Living" hopes to capture and attract the hip-urban-entrepreneurial type (Clinton presidential Library, Ilcifer Project intonational) who will embrace this architecture much like the pioneers before them wvho were inspired by Charles Thompson's home designs of the .past. We hope our homes will have the same. timeless quality, imagination and historic values. Thanks for your cmiderativn. PaulPage Dwellings. LLC William Page Wilson Legal Description: Lots 7, 8, 9 Block 49 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County Cover letter from applicant continued STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial with the following conditions: COMMISSION ACTION: November 13, 2006 Notices for the meeting were approved by the Planning Commission. Tony Bozynski was present at the Planning Commission meeting. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission concerning the application. The application is going to the Board of Directors after this hearing. The applicant must receive approval from the Planning Commission and the Historic District Commission before going to the Board of Directors. During the presentation, a discussion ensued with the commissioners as to where windows are to be placed versus to areas with Hardipanel is placed. Page Wilson, the applicant, spoke briefly about the project and then asked his architect, Rick Redden, to speak on behalf of the project. Mr. Redden stated that the design was for people that worked downtown and tried to appeal to the "pioneer break of people" that would live into the area. He would like to create a neighborhood to the south of the River Market. He tried to stress quality into the design. He noted that a Property Owners Association (POA) would be responsible for the common areas including landscape maintenance. 21 The commissioners did not have any questions of the applicant. Boyd Maher, AHPP, stated that he and several of the staff at AHPP had had an opportunity to review the application and was inclined to concur with the Staff recommendation. He praised the initiative of the project, but it should draw more from other architecture of area. He stated that they were looking more for "contemporary compatible." Charles Evans, a property owner in the district, stated that he questioned which was the more redeeming of the two, the old one or the new. Change is different, and it is not bad to have some new with the old. He said that he did not think that the project degraded the district. Chair Newbern clarified that Mr. Evans was in favor of something. He was also in favor of something other than imitation of the old. Mr. Evans agreed and stated that he was considering building a house for himself in the 1300 block of Rock. Staff produced a photo of the old four plex that was originally on the site both pre and after the tornado. Chair Newbern referenced the Secretary of Interior Standards that once a building is removed, that the applicant should do something different. Chair Newbern asked for other comments from the public; there were none. Commissioner Walls stated that quality was the big issue for him, to have bad quality is worse than having nothing or a sad knockoff. He questioned the job of the HDC: quality versus imitation. Not everybody wants to live in the same box and he applauded infill development and environmentalism. Commissioner Kay Tatum asked on the mass and size of the project. Mr. Minyard explained that historically, buildings were typically set on fifty-foot wide lots with buildings forty feet wide or less. He talked about position of the building on lots. The length of the facades on the 1960's and 70's were not as wide as the proposed building. He stated that he was not counting Parkview and Cumberland Towers since they are high -rise and not congruous with the historic neighborhood. Chair Newbern asked about the raised foundation. Mr. Wilson responded that the height of the foundation will be similar to those in the neighborhood. Commissioner Walls assumed that it was to be 24-30 inches out of ground. Mr. Wilson stated as a response to a question, that the original four-plex was built on a lot and a half. Other new buildings that have been approved are longer than his proposed building, namely the dorms for the law school and the Fish Factory building, which is commercial. Mr. Redden summarized the front fagade of the building and explained the courtyard in the front (referred to as walled patio in staff report). The projections over the front doors 22 help the building. The landscape is important to the project and reiterated about the POA maintenance of the project. Mr. Wilson stated that nineteen percent of the area is to be open space and that there are differences in the multifamily (Eastside) and his area to be owner occupied. Chair Newbern stated that they were indeed comparing apples and oranges. Chair Newbern asked about the north and south elevations and particularly the wide short windows on the two end apartments. Mr. Wilson stated that the north window would be blocked with vegetation and the south window would be viewed from the street. Mr. Redden said that the slot windows are more functional than other types. He was trying to bring more exciting design to the area and trying to market to young professionals. Chair Newbern noted that the slot windows and the walled courtyards implied jails and forbidding architecture. Mr. Wilson noted that he had driven around the district and that there are varying sizes and shapes of windows in the area. Commissioner Peters asked about the height of the walls on the courtyard and the front walled patio. He noted that the plan states 4' on the front and 7' on the rear courtyard. Mr. Redden said that it was four feet from the floor of the patio, but the four feet in the front act more like six feet because of the foundation height. Mr. Wilson stated that the area was a modern reinterpretation of a front porch, with privacy when you area sitting and visibility when you stood up. Chair Newbern said that traditional front porches are inviting, but the walls made it forbidding. Commissioner Susan Bell did not have any comments on the application. Commissioner Walls said that the roofs were okay, but scaling and massing were important to him. "How does it relates is the question." Chair Newbern asked if a change in materials would change his opinion. Commissioner Walls responded no. "The gridded stucco is a bit foreign." The scale and massing of row houses interpretation is great. Chair Newbern asked if the windows were operable. Mr. Redden answered that not all of them were, but at least one in each room are operational. Mr. Wilson said that the zigzag apartments were the inspiration for the building. Commissioner Walls asked what was planned if they denied the application. Mr. Wilson responded that with the value of the land, he would take the path of least resistance with apartments with a pitch roof and less quality of the structures. He continued that he could build ten units on the lots. Tony Bozynski, Planning Director, clarified that ten units would require a zoning change just as the townhouse did. Commissioner Walls asked if Mr. Wilson was planning on developing or selling. Mr. Wilson said yes. Mr. Minyard explained the differences in the zoning map (six units of three duplexes), the Future Land Use Plan (Low Density Residential with up to 10 units per acre) and the Historic District commission hearing. Boyd Maher quoted from the state enabling 23 legislation that the "HDC take no action that is non-congruous" with the aspects of the District. Ms. Weldon stated that the remark was taken out of context and stated that the quote was from the interior features section. Chair Newbern asked the commissioners if they thought the project was congruous or incongruous. Commissioner Peters said that he liked the plan but did not care for the walled areas. The Guidelines state that a 36" fence height on the front and 6' on the rear courtyard. He continued that the elevations do not show a raised elevation. Discussion continued about the raised elevation and how the drawings do not show a raised elevation. Mr. Redden asked if the walls on the courtyards were too high. Commissioner Peters stated that they were and asked if they were putting in mature plants. Chair Newbern also stated the walls were too tall with a raised slab. Mr. Wilson stated that the site is fairly flat and will have stairs to the units. SIB asked if this was a custom design or an existing design. Mr. Redden stated that this was designed for this site. Conversation continued about the height of the wall. Chair Newbern stated that the design would be less formidable if the wall was less high. Commissioner Peters said that people on his block visit on their front porches, but this building is like a fort. The site may need more protections, but the design does not seem to be friendly. Mr. Redden referenced Jane Jacobs "eyes on the street" and the walled patio in the front was to coax people into the front yard. Mr. Redden stated that he could live with shorter walls on the front walled patio. Commissioner Walls asked about softening the front fagade. He noted that all of the parapets are the same height, and asked if parapets of different heights were considered. Mr. Redden stated that the boxed bays in the front do break up the line of the front fagade. Commissioner Walls continued that maybe some undulation of the parapet walls would be nice. Commissioner Walls made a motion to approve the design with the conditions: 1) the walled patios walls to be three feet in height and the materials of the walls be reconsidered so that the walls will be less massive and 2) the height of the parapets be undulating with a final design submitted to staff. Commissioner Peters seconded. The commission then looked at the larger drawings. Chair Newbern asked about the solid panels versus the windows. Commissioner Peters wished that the plans handed out to the commissioners had true elevations (showing foundations). He continued that it was impossible to read the text on the small drawings. He pointed out that the wall around the rear courtyard said seven feet tall. Commissioner Walls amended his motion to state that the rear courtyard wall to be six feet tall maximum. Mr. Redden stated that the colors would be slightly different from shown on the colored elevation. 24 Commissioner Peters commented that it was going to be one large building, a large mass of structures. Mr. Redden commented that the walls are the part that reinforces the street. Mr. Wilson added that it sits 13 feet past the other structures in the area, it is joined, and that is the difference. Commissioner Walls amended his motion to include the rear courtyard wall to be a maximum of six feet in height. Commissioner Peters seconded the motion amendment. The motion was passed with a vote of five ayes, 0 noes and no absent. Commissioner Walls expected more comments from citizens in the area. Chair Newbern stated that the changes make it more palatable of the area. Mr. Wilson thanked the commission. 25 IV. Other Matters a. Presentation of Stiffts Station District: Sandra Taylor Smith made a presentation to the commission concerning the newly nominated Stiffts Station National Register District. The presentation was made to the State Review Board on October 18, 2006. Boyd Maher started a discussion about both that area and Capitol View becoming a Local Ordinance District. Some individuals have expressed a desire to do so. b. Homeowner /investor handbook: This has been sent to the various agencies to check for accuracy of the website data. Staff expects to print it before the end of the year. c. Ordinance revisions: Boyd Maher has asked for a copy of the draft of the revisions. All comments are to be sent to Debra Weldon of the Attorney's office. Chair Newbern comments are to be distributed to each of the commissioners. d. Preservation Plan strategy: timetable; facilitator A letter is to be sent to the incoming mayor, Mark Stodola, to introduce the topic of the preservation plan for the City of Little Rock. Chair Newbern and Staff are to draft a letter to be sent. Money has been requested to be included in the city budget for the preservation plan. The National Trust can give small grants to bring people in to discuss preservation plans. The consensus was to explore this possibility. It was also mentioned that in the preservation plan, quarterly informational educational meetings should be held for the general public. e. Enforcement updates: No changes since the last meeting. f. Surveys for MacArthur Park & Central High: The MacArthur Park is under contract and Central High should be under contract soon. g. Street signs /toppers for MacArthur Park: Staff has been working on the street toppers and Public Works has responded with size and other criteria. Should be able to order soon. V. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn by Commissioner Walls and was seconded by Commissioner Tatum. The meeting ended at 8:42 p.m. Attest: Chair Date 26