Loading...
HDC_07 23 2020Page 1 of 65 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, July 23, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Board Room, City Hall Roll Call Quorum was present being six (6) in number. Members Present: Chair Jeremiah Russell Vice Chair Ted Holder Lauren Frederick Robert Hodge Lindsey Boerner Christine Aleman Members Absent: Amber Jones City Attorney: Sherri Latimer Staff Present: Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Ann Ballard Bryan Cheri Nichols Frances McSwain David Anderson Ray Wittenberg Tim Fox Tim Heiple Don Johnson Mark Nichols Frederick Gentry Matthew Pekar Page Wilson Notice requirements were met on all of the items except as noted in individual hearing items. Notice of public hearing was printed in a newspaper of general circulation, posted on the internet and emails were sent to interested citizens and the press to inform them of the agenda being posted online. Page 2 of 65 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. IV One. DATE: July 23, 2020 APPLICANT: Mason Toms, AHPP ADDRESS: 2023 E 6th Street FILE NUMBER: NR2020-003 REQUEST: Nomination of the Little Rock Fire Station No. 9 to the National Register of Historic Places PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 2023 E 6th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 1 and 2, Block 27, of Garland’s Addition of the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Location of Little Rock Fire Station No. 9 Page 3 of 65 PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Little Rock Fire Station No. 9 to the National Register. The nomination states: “Little Rock Fire Station No. 9 is a two-story frame building with a brick veneer located at 923 East Sixth Street in the Garlands Addition to the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, on the southwest corner of the intersection at E. Sixth Street and Fletcher Street. The site is located roughly 1.5 miles east of downtown Little Rock, near the western edge of Adams Field, and is best described as flat with minimal trees. The fire station was designed by Little Rock architect, H. Ray Burks, and was constructed in 1930 by the C.L. Hardin Construction Company of Little Rock, Arkansas. “The Little Rock Fire Station No. 9 originally housed the firefighting services for the northeastern section of Little Rock and retains a high level of integrity dating to its original construction. It is characterized as a blend of Tudor Revival and Colonial Revival architectural elements, painted brick exterior, large brick chimneys, and both a steeply pitched gable roof and a gambrel roof with shed dormers, covered in asphalt shingles. The plan of the fire station is rectangular in nature, with a brick extension on the south side of the building and a metal clad addition to the south of that. The addition was added to the rear of the building in 1945 but was recently covered in a vertical metal siding and topped with a metal shed roof. Abutting the building on the south side is a newer shed-roofed structure that is covered in vertical metal siding. The building sits on a poured concrete foundation and is oriented towards the four cardinal directions, which was determined by the preexisting street grid. “Much of the interior arrangements of the former fire station remain as they were historically. The only significant interior change was the removal of the fireman’s pole, which was done in the 1970s out of safety concerns. The alterations to the exterior of the building have been minor, in general. Though many of the windows on the building have been covered with plywood, a security measure by recent owners, it appears that the original wood and steel windows are intact underneath. The two greatest permanent alterations to the building’s exterior are the replacement of the wood windows in the south dormer with vinyl windows, and the replacement of the stairwell window with a door on the east façade, which occurred in the 1980s when the Imperial Social Club of Little Rock was using the upper level as a meeting space. Additionally, though the rear addition was historic, its recent recladding with vertical metal siding do detract from the historic appearance of the structure. Despite these changes, the building still retains the majority of its historic fabric and still presents itself in much the same way as it had during its period of significance.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A and C. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction. Page 4 of 65 COMMISSION ACTION: July 23, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission of the item. There were no questions of the Commissioners. Mr. Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program was available for questions. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve the nomination to the National Register. Commissioner Lindsey Boerner seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Jones). Page 5 of 65 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. IV Two. DATE: July 23, 2020 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 510 North Brookside Drive FILE NUMBER: NR2020-004 REQUEST: Nomination of the Presbyterian Village to the National Register of Historic Places PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 510 North Brookside Drive. The property’s legal description is “Lot 15 and 15R of the Glenhaven Subdivision of the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Location of Presbyterian Village Page 6 of 65 PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Presbyterian Village to the National Register. The nomination states: “Presbyterian Village is located at 510 Brookside Drive in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, which is to the west of downtown Little Rock. Built in the 1960s and early 1970s, along with much of the other development in its area, Presbyterian Village is located in an area of Little Rock that is mainly residential in nature. The exception is the commercial development immediately to Presbyterian Village’s west along Rodney Parham Road and the south end of Reservoir Road. The south end of Presbyterian Village includes the Healthcare and Rehabilitation and Residential Care sections of the facility, while the middle of the complex is the Lodge area. The northern section of Presbyterian Village consists of the Cottages, which are separate buildings with the independent living apartments. “Much of the complex is one story in height with the only exception being the Healthcare and Rehabilitation part of the facility which is three stories in height. The walls of Presbyterian Village are mainly faced in orange-colored brick and the roofs are either shallow gable roofs or, in the case of the Healthcare and Rehabilitation wing, a shallow hipped roof. The arrangement of the Lodge and Cottages also creates several outdoor courtyards for the enjoyment of the Village’s residents. “Since the time that Presbyterian Village was built in the 1960s and early 1970s, changes to the facility, for the most part, have been minor and mainly of a cosmetic nature. The layout of the complex has not changed and the design of the various parts of the Village still reflects its 1960s and 1970s layout. The layout of Presbyterian Village, with the Cottages at the north end, Lodge and Residential Care in the middle, and the Healthcare and Rehabilitation section at the south end, allowed for progressive, multi-level care from north to south as a patient’s needs changed. The setting around Presbyterian Village still reflects the time when the complex was built with mainly residential development around the facility, except for the commercial development to the west. “The two largest changes to Presbyterian Village have occurred on the east side of the facility. First, the porte cochere at the main entrance was replaced with a new one, although the new porte cochere approximates the design of the initial entrance. The other large change is the construction of the Chapel to the north of the main entrance in 2018. However, even with these changes, Presbyterian Village is able to reflect the qualities that make the complex significant. Presbyterian Village still easily reflects its original design and the novel, multi-level care approach to healthcare that made it a ground-breaking complex.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A which is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Page 7 of 65 COMMISSION ACTION: July 23, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission of the item. There were no questions of the Commissioners. Mr. Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program was available for questions. Commissioner Robert Hodge made a motion to approve the nomination to the National Register. Vice Chair Ted Holder seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Jones). Page 8 of 65 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. IV Three. DATE: July 23, 2020 APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP ADDRESS: 800 E 9th Street FILE NUMBER: NR2020-005 REQUEST: Nomination (additional documentation) of the Taborian Hall to the National Register of Historic Places PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 800 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lots 7&8, block 228, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Location of Taborian Hall Page 9 of 65 PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Taborian Hall to the National Register. The nomination states: “Taborian Hall, located at 800 West 9th Street in downtown Little Rock, is a three-story tall brick building with a symmetrical façade that is located in what was the center of the city’s African-American commercial core. Built on a continuous brick foundation and having brick walls with pilasters on the west, south, and east façades, Taborian Hall is topped by a hipped roof with a flat section in the middle of the building. The building has a prominent projecting cornice supported by brackets that spans the south façade and wraps around a bit of the east and west façades. The building’s windows are mainly one-over-one, double-hung windows, except for the storefronts, which have large stationary, plate-glass windows and multi-pane transom windows. “Overall, the building retains good integrity from the time of its construction. The original design of the building, for the most part, is clearly evident. The largest change, which is currently ongoing, is the construction of an elevator tower on the west side of the building to allow for ADA accessibility to the Dreamland Ballroom space on the third floor. However, the tower, which is being funded through National Park Service Civil Rights grants, is designed to be set apart from the original building, and to clearly be new construction while playing off of the original building’s details. The area around the building has also changed in character, especially with the loss of many of the area’s surrounding buildings, but that occurred prior to the building’s listing on the National Register in 1982.” NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A which is defined as: Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. COMMISSION ACTION: July 23, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission of the item. Chair Jeremiah Russell started a conversation about more information on the west addition. Mr. Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program was available for questions. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve the nomination to the National Register. Commissioner Lindsey Boerner seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Jones). Page 10 of 65 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: July 23, 2020 APPLICANT: Tim Heiple, Heiple+Wiedower ADDRESS: NE Corner 10th and Rock Streets FILE NUMBER: HDC2019-023 COA REQUEST: Infill 18 unit multifamily building PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at NE Corner 10th and Rock Streets. The property’s legal description is “Lot 4, 5, and 6, Block 59, less and except a 20’ portion on the east side, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas” The property has been vacant since at least the time the January 1970 aerial photos were taken. In the 1960 aerial photos, there were six houses shown with four facing Rock Street and two facing 10th Street. The proposed application features a multifamily structure with 18 units that will be constructed for sale as condos. The single building proposed is “L” shaped with a courtyard. It is three stories tall with parking underground and in the rear. This property is the subject to a Planned Residential Development rezoning (Z-9467) at the Planning Commission which was deferred on November 21 to the January 9, 2020 hearing. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 1, 1998, a COA was approved and issued to Archie Hearne for twelve townhouses in two structures. On September 21, 1987, a COA was approved and issued Dr. NW Reigler, Jr., MD for the construction of a medical clinic. Location of Project Page 11 of 65 The Sanborn maps below show up to six houses have been on this site. In 1897, only five houses were shown. All the houses were one story with shingle roofs with porches on the left side. The porches were covered with slate or metal roofs. The 1960 serial phot shows the same roof structure for the four houses facing Rock; they may have been identical houses to start. On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, six houses were shown all being one story. Two houses were added on 10th Street. The roofs were shingle with slate or metal on the porches. 1939 Sanborn Map (Note: Site has six houses and lot to east is vacant.) 1950 Sanborn map (Note: Park Place Apts has been built.) 1960 Aerial photo 1970 aerial photo The authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to review new construction in the district is authorized by the Sections 14-172-208 of the Arkansas state statute and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report. The authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to review new construction in the district is authorized by the Sections Sec. 23-115, Sec. 23-119, and Sec. 23-120 of the Little Rock Municipal code and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report. Page 12 of 65 The guidelines cover new construction of residential structures on pages 31-41 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Detached New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings. Site Design is on pages 57-64 under Section VII Design Guidelines for Site Design and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report. Proposed Elevation along Rock Street for the December 2019 hearing. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: SITING The building is “L” shaped with the two wings facing the streets and a courtyard and parking in the rear. The wing facing Rock Street is 140 feet long not including porches and steps. It has a 5 foot setback on the north side and a five foot setback on the south not including porches and steps. Subtracting porches and steps along 10th, the setback is 1’-8”. The wing facing 10th Street is 113’-5” long not including porches and steps. The setback along 10th Street is 5 feet, and the east setback is 5 feet. Subtracting porches and steps along Rock Street, the setback is 1’-8”. The setback of the building along the street is similar to the setbacks of 913 Rock and Park Place Apartments at 920 Commerce Street. This building is wider than other buildings on the adjacent block faces although the facade treatment has attempted to break up the mass through use of different colors and materials. The site coverage, the amount of the site covered by a building, appears to be greater that the buildings in the area of influence. Surrounding properties north at 913 Rock Street Project site looking north from 10th Surrounding properties east on 10th 920 Commerce Page 13 of 65 Across street at 922 Rock Across street at 1003 Rock Across street at 407 E 10th HEIGHT The applicant has provided a drawing showing heights of buildings on the adjacent streets with information gained from the PaGIS topography site where base ground elevation is measured in addition to building heights using LiDAR technology. The tallest part of the proposed building, the third floor under the mansard roof, is 44 feet tall and the three-story portion is 40 feet tall according to the drawings provided. The corner bay of the building features the mansard roof being four feet taller to add emphasis to the corner of the building. Height in MacArthur Park is measured to the highest point of the building from the ground according to the guidelines. Zoning measures height from the elevation from the lowest finished floor to the deck line of a mansard roof, this would add an additional three feet to the height. From the architect’s drawings below, Park Place Apartments measures 42 feet, 913 Rock measures 23 feet, 922 Rock measures 31 feet and 405 E 10th measures 42 feet. The numbers from PaGIS are from the ground base elevation. These structures have pitched roofs whereas the proposed building will have flat roofs sloped to the courtyard. Context of site provided by architect for the December 2019 hearing. Page 14 of 65 PROPORTION The proportion of this building to others in the area of influence is varied. It shares a similar width to Park Place Apartments when comparing the long axis of Park Place. It is wider than all of the other buildings in the area of influence. Just outside the area of influence, it is less wide than Cumberland Towers and the Parkview Towers at 1200 Commerce. The state statute references that review should include both the Area of Influence as well as the entire district. In individual elements of the building, the building is more in proportion to the rest of the area of influence. The windows are vertically oriented and some ganged and some not. The doors are 6’-8” tall with transoms (not overly sized). The window to wall (solid to void) ratio is visually similar to surrounding buildings. The cornice could be considered to be undersized for this height of building. On the corner bay with the mansard roof, the bay seems out of proportion. The brick area on the second floor appears too short to support the visual weight of the mansard roof. RHYTHM The building has a rhythm with the placement of windows and doors that is reoccurring and orderly. The building is also divided into seven bays on the Rock Street and the 10th Street side is divided into five bays. This rhythm of alternating brick and stucco creates a rhythm that could mirror individual houses if attached. The building features two bays, one on each side (with stucco finish), which is recessed instead of having one flat plane that is beneficial. On the Rock Street side, the southernmost stucco bay is recessed five feet. Proposed Elevation along 10th Street for the December 2019 hearing. SCALE This proposed design has divided the building into smaller bays with differing materials, setbacks, and colors. The Park Place apartments are four stories with one in the reclaimed attic area. Other buildings in the area are one, two, and two and one-half stories tall. The building scale is similar in footprint area to Park Place Apartments, but not to any other building in the area of influence. Immediately outside the area of influence lie Cumberland Towers and Parkview Towers. The state statute references that review should include both the Area of Influence as well as the entire district. The scale is influenced with the setbacks. The setbacks are similar with 913 Rock and Park Place Apartments, but the width of the existing buildings along 10th Street and Rock Street are less than the proposed building which makes the scale seem larger. When analyzing the elements of the building with the building itself, the building is in scale with Page 15 of 65 the doors, windows, recesses, etc. For example, the window size is appropriate and in scale for that smaller bays of the building. The corner bay with the mansard roof seems out of scale being top heavy. MASSING The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but most of the existing buildings have pitched roofs. The heights of the buildings are measured to the top of the pitched roof per the guidelines. The additional mass of a pitched roof to a building is obviously less than that of a mansard roof. A mansard roof brings more of the mass closer to the street. The wider elevations of the building also add to the larger perceived mass. The building has three recessed areas to break up the plane of the elevation. The porches, balconies, and steps will break up the mass on the first-floor level. The sunken parking is a bonus to the site but makes the first floor be five feet off the ground which adds to the overall height and mass of the building. The foundation heights on this building will be higher than others in the area of influence. ENTRANCE AREA On Rock Street, there will be three entrances to the units. On 10th Street, there will be two. These will be either recessed or flush with the facade. What are labeled as porches on the site plan are shown as balconies on the elevations. They are 5 feet deep. The exterior steps to a landing serve a common door that will house an elevator for six units. There will be a small overhang fixed canopy at the door over the landing. On existing structures, 913 Rock has a minimal porch area with the door slightly recessed from the front facade. Most of the structures in the area of influence have front porches with the exception of 920 Rock (the faux New Orleans apartments), the Kadel Cottage at 407 E 10th, and Park Place Apartments. All of the proposed units will have access to the street level via steps with metal railings. The bay at the street corner and will feature an arched opening on both elevations and is the functional entrance to one of the units via Rock Street. The steps to the units will be concrete with a light broom finish. WALL AREAS The end wall areas (north and east elevations) consist of two types of materials. Those bays with a limestone tile base will have the limestone wrap around the corner. Otherwise, the entirety of the end walls will be brick. Brick is a very common building material in the district and the area of influence. The windows are vertically oriented and Entry Door Detail Example of Stucco with lime wash Photo of limestone tile Page 16 of 65 aligned vertically at the rear of the structure. There is a rowlock at the floor level to denote the differing stories of the building. The windows are manufactured by Crestmark, are vinyl, all are 2 over 2 vertical, and will have mullions applied to the exterior of the window. The glass will be insulated glass. The windows will be a “Sandstone” color. The rough sizes of the windows are 36” x 78” and 48” x 78”. Windows installed in the brick or stucco will have a 2” wide brick mold on three sides and an oversized wood-like sill on the bottom. Windows in the mansard roof section will have cornices with roofing or flashing applied, wood-like trim on the sides and the bottom of the window will be flush with the mansard roof with sill the same width as the window The doors will be by Simpson, will have a stained wood finish and be 36” by 6’-8” tall with a transom above. They are a six panel wood door. Side elevation of building for the December 2019 hearing. ROOF AREA The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but the existing buildings have pitched roofs where this proposed building has flat and mansard roofs. The HDC measures the heights of building to the highest point. This building with the flat and mansard roofs, brings the highest point of the building closer to the street whereas most of the existing structures in the area of influence have pitched roofs which place the highest point farther away from the street and the viewer. 920 Rock Street is a two story building and has a flat roof. The non-mansard roof portions of the building will feature a 24” tall cornice. The near flat roofs will have a minimal slope to the courtyard and will have a TPO covering. TPO stands for thermoplastic polyolefin, a single-ply roofing membrane that covers the surface Page 17 of 65 of the roof. TPO is actually one of a few different types of rubber, usually a blend of polypropylene and ethylene-propylene rubber. Gutters and downspouts will only be on the rear portions of the building. Some of the bays will feature a mansard roof that will be covered in DeVinci Bellaforte Slate, a composite virgin resin material of interlocking and overlaying tiles. FAÇADE Wall areas consist of three types of materials. Those bays with a limestone tile base will have the second and third floors veneered in brick. The brick on the bay on the street corner will be white and the other brick on the building will be red brick. The other bays will have a stucco finish with a lime wash proposed to give it an aged look. The limestone and the stucco cover the foundation. The three bays at the street corner will have slate shingles on the top floor. Brick is a very common building material in the district and the area of influence. Stucco is used as the primary building material at 1107 Cumberland and is a material historically used in gable ends. Slate is not a common roofing material in the district but has been used on at least four structures (Vila Marre, Cherry House, Lutheran Church, and St Edwards Church). The windows are vertically oriented and fairly symmetrically placed. The windows and balconies clearly identify the different floors of the building. There are multiple vents on the foundation of approximately 2 feet by 4 feet that vent the basement parking level. DETAILING Detailing of the building will be primarily in the porch areas, balconies and roofing. Here the primary elements with be the railings, arched top of the porch, and the slate roof. The building is shown with a cornice that will be at the top of the third floor features dentil molding. It is shown to be painted and is a “wood-like material”. The dormer windows on the third floor will have metal flashing between the slate and the wood trim around the windows. The dormers have flat and arched tops. Details are in scale with the building and not overpowering. Downspouts will not be located on the street facades. No solar panels are being proposed on this building. Metal Railings on steps and porches Proposed Cornice for the December 2019 hearing. Proposed Cornice mockup for the December 2019 hearing. Slate roof shingles for the December 2019 hearing. Page 18 of 65 SITE DESIGN SIDEWALKS: The sidewalk along Rock and 10th Street will be replaced. They are plain concrete sidewalks and will be replaced with non-stained light broom finish concrete. PLANNED GREEN SPACE: The trees that are between the sidewalks and the street are proposed to be preserved. FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS: The fences proposed along the street frontage is a metal 4 feet tall fence by Ameristar Montage Plus fencing. The fence is proposed to be a metal fence with double top rails and pressed flat finials. This is not in compliance with the guidelines that state a 3 feet tall fence is appropriate. There will be gates to the porch areas breaking this fence, two times on Rock Street and two times on 10th Street. The fence will not feature a ninety degree right angle and follow the property line exactly. Instead, it clip the corner by the intersection and feature a 45 degree section to allow for the building sign to be placed on the property outside of the right of way. The side and rear fence (north and east sides) will be a six feet tall opaque wood privacy fence. On the north side, it will start at the rear of the building. On the east side, the six foot tall wood privacy fence is already there. The connections between the lower front yard fences and the taller rear and side yard fences are crucial. The guidelines state that the taller privacy fences should start one-half way back of the primary structure. On the north side, the start of the six feet opaque fence needs to start at a logical point. The property at 913 Rock has a privacy fence in the rear yard. 411 E 9th Street also has a fence that abuts the subject property. There is a stairway down to the lower parking garage midway of the wall and possible hvac units to the rear of the building. Mechanical units should be screened. Starting the wood fence as far away from Rock Street yet enclosing any mechanical units and stairway would meet the spirit of the guidelines. The metal fence along Rock Street could be extended to meet the starting point of the wood fence. On the east side, the existing parking area has a six feet tall wood privacy fence. A portion of that fence should be removed to conform to the spirit of the Guidelines. It is unknown who owns that particular fence. It is also debatable if that fence needs to remain since it will be one foot off the face of the building. Dumpsters should be screened. The dumpster will be shared with Park Place Apartments. The screening required is an opaque fence at least 24” above the top of the dumpster not to exceed 8 feet in height (Sec. 36-523 and Sec. 15-95). Proposed fence Page 19 of 65 LIGHTING: Exterior light fixtures are shown at the corner unit at the intersection of Rock and 10th Street. They are a modified Carriage style wall hung fixture by Kichler, Bay Village series with a Weathered Zinc finish. Other lighting visible to the public includes recessed can fixtures over the individual doors at the entryways. Additional lights in the courtyard area will not be visible from the street. No Security lighting has been specified. RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND CURB CUTS: Thirty-four parking spaces are being provided underground or in the rear of the building. These spaces will be accessed through the existing curb cut on 10th Street. No additional curb cuts will be made. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICE AREAS: Air conditioning will be either roof top units or split systems. There will be outside equipment located on the roof generally in the center of the building and possibly on the ground on the north side and in the courtyard. ELECTRICAL AND GAS METERS: Electrical and gas meters and other mechanical equipment should be located on the rear or side elevations, not visible from the street. SATELLITE DISHES: Satellite dishes are not anticipated on this project. Any installation of Satellite Dishes will need to be approved either by Staff because they are not visible from the street or by the Commission if they are visible. SIGN: The sign will be placed outside of the fence. It will be four feet tall by four feet wide and faced in the same limestone that is on the building. Metal letters will be attached to the sign. There will be two small ground mounted lights on the sign. The lights on the sign should not be oversized; washing out of the details and words of the sign is commonplace. SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING The applicant attended the September 20, 2019 pre application hearing. The comments from the commissioners are summarized as follows: SITING – generally no concern and is respective of adjacent properties. HEIGHT – The building is taller than the guidelines allow and would like to see other buildings in the area. Guidelines state height should be 35’ or 3 stories within the district. PROPORTION – generally in compliance. Lighting Proposed sign Page 20 of 65 RHYTHM – divided response with not complying with the guidelines or okay for what it is. SCALE – generally in compliance in relation to surrounding buildings, but setback facades help to reduce overall impact. Height is an issue. MASSING – Would like information on sizes of neighbor buildings, height is an issue. ENTRANCE AREA – generally in compliance. WALL AREAS – generally in compliance with one comment of glass area is large compared to wall area. ROOF AREA – generally in compliance. FAÇADE – generally in compliance but make sure all exterior materials are used in some form in the district. DETAILING – be respective of surrounding context. Staff feels that multifamily developments with the look of townhouses can be appropriate infill for lots that have been vacant for forty plus years. However, the construction of multifamily can alter the scale of the area as evidenced in the last three multifamily projects that have been built in the district. Materials and facade treatments become important to blend into the neighborhood. This project has divided the street elevations into five and seven bays on each street elevation. Proposed materials have been used in the district or are historic materials that would have been used in the period of significance. The height of the building is similar to others in the district but taller than some in the area of influence. The state statute speaks to being appropriate to the area of influence and the district as a whole. The district has mid-rise towers such as Cumberland and Parkview Towers but the majority of the district is one and two story homes interspersed with the occasional three story apartment building. The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but the existing buildings have pitched roofs where this proposed building has flat and mansard roofs. This building with the flat and mansard roofs brings the highest point of the building closer to the street whereas most of the existing structures in the area of influence have pitched roofs which place the highest point farther away from the street and the viewer. This affects the perceived mass and scale of the project. However, if a development is executed well with materials, details, rhythm of elements, it can be appropriate to the district. Staff feels that this project is readable as an infill project and does not duplicate a historic building. It uses materials that are found in the district or have been used historically. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Any changes to the elevations of the building in any phase of the permitting process to be reviewed by Staff. Page 21 of 65 3. No electric meters, hvac equipment, cable boxes, satellite dishes, or other utility equipment to be installed on street facing facades. 4. All ground mounted fences along Rock and 10th Street installed at ground level within the built setback shall be 36 inches tall. COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019 Chair Ted Holder stated for the commission in general that all commissioners have been bombarded with emails and some with phone calls about this item. Chair Holder stated that the commissioners have not promised any votes one way or the other. Sherry Latimer, City Attorney’s office, reiterated that any emails or phone calls have not influenced any decision on their part. Chair Holder stated that summed up his comments. Brian Minyard, Staff, clarified that all emails received as of today have been submitted to the Commission. Chair Holder stated that the Staff will make a presentation, then the applicant, then any citizens can make statements about the application. With the number of people in the audience, all citizens will be limited to three minutes. He will notify you when your time is almost up. He encouraged them to not repeat others that have already spoken. The Chair recognized former Commissioner Missy McSwain with a question. The answer was that the developer was not limited to three minutes. Mr. Minyard made a presentation of the item with staff recommendations. Tim Heiple, representing the applicant, handed out some information to the Commissioners that were new drawings. He stated that the land was one time a part of the Park Place Apartments property. They worked on different scenarios to develop the land. With this proposal, there will be no additional curb cuts. It will feature thirty-six partially underground parking spaces and one will be on grade. The sixty-foot dimension of the parking dictated the width of the units above. This will feature 18 units on four levels. These units will be for sale, no rent als. The floor plans are different in the units. Chair Holder asked about the differences in the latest version of the project. Mr. Heiple continued that they took off the penthouses from the earlier submittals. The building will be approximately forty feet plus four feet of foundation height. Elevators were eliminated so that more parking was added underground. Commissioner Amber Jones asked about the square footage of the units. Mr. Heiple responded they would be in the 1700-1800 square feet range. With the changes, there will be an entrance at each bay instead of each unit. The units have changed from multilevel units to flats. He stated that the corner of the building was taller in an effort to screen the mechanical units on top of the building. Chair Holder stated that it was now time for citizen comment. There was a brief discussion and it was decided that he would go down the sign in list to call speakers. Missy McSwain, 407 E 10th Street, spoke in opposition to the application. She showed some slides on the screen and spoke of the contributing and non-contributing structures. She stated that it was a sensitive area. She spoke of Caroline Row, the oldest apartments that are row Page 22 of 65 houses and of appropriate infill of the Rainwater Flats. She stated the project was too big for the site and taller than the guidelines stated height of thirty-five feet. She continued that the proportion is not sympathetic and the mansard roof looked like the 1970’s apartments on Mara Lynn Drive. The ordinance is there for a reason and please follow the ordinance. Ray Wittenburg, 407 E 10th Street, spoke in opposition. He stated that the application was wrong for this place and does not want to look at a massive wall. He believes the project is overkill and cramming too many units into a small area. Rebecca Pekar, 1010 Rock, spoke in opposition. She stated she has lived in the neighborhood for twenty years. The neighborhood has a mix of styles, heights, and sizes. She referenced photos of Rock Street proceeding north from the freeway. Two properties have burned at the 11th and Rock intersection and will have infill projects there eventually. She continued about the scale and the general feel of the homes on Rock Street. It is critical that it be right when the new buildings are approved. She continued about setbacks and the heights of the scale and spacing of the new buildings. Fred Brown, 2620 N Fillmore and resident of Little Rock for 68 years, stated that he hoped that they respected the historic aspect of the area. Dale Pekar, 1010 Rock, spoke in opposition. He stated the guidelines state thirty-five feet for infill buildings. He asked for the commission to consider if the project was across the street from their houses with eighteen units with a forty-four feet tall building with small setbacks. He asked the Commission to deny the application. He continued that the Commission should be trying to improve the district, and that the three lots could have three different developments with single family or duplexes which would be more in keeping with the area. Mr. Dale Pekar stated that it was inappropriate to compare the height to Cumberland Towers and Parkview Towers. He finished by saying that the setback of 913 Rock is larger than stated on the submittals. John Hoffheimer, 407 E 9th, spoke in opposition. He also owns adjacent property next to the alley. He stated that he has problems with the trash from the dumpster at Park Place. He feels that walking past the proposed building will be like walking next to a battleship in dry dock. He continued that the best use of the property would be goats and chickens, but that would be a little much to ask. Susan Taylor, 904 Rock, spoke in opposition. She believes that the design is inappropriate in heights, scale, rhythm, and massing and does not comply with the zoning. Bryon Taylor, 904 Rock, chose not to speak. Patricia Blick, Executive Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association, asked if the Commission had been given her comments. The answer was yes. The project was reviewed by QQA staff, the advocacy committee and the full board. She commented that the project has some positive attributes, but did pull some serious concerns with design. The design will overwhelm other buildings and materials are a concern. Adam Smith, 1015 Cumberland, lives two blocks from the project. He is a real estate developer and this is a highly specialized market. This area will soon be at its’ capacity for multi-family units. Page 23 of 65 If the condos are not sold quickly, they may pivot to rentals. An indefinitely vacant building is worse. Melissa Laux, 1015 Rock, spoke in opposition. She appreciated the underground parking. She spoke of where the guests would park and the area is already tight on parking as is. Stephanie Roberts, 1014 Rock, stated that she has nothing to add. Leonard Hollinger, 420 E 11th Street, spoke in opposition. He spoke of his daily habits of his driving route. Tenants of the Cumberland Apartments park primarily on the street where it is convenient for them, not where they are supposed to park. He worries that the tenants will be parking on the street, not in the underground parking area. Carl Miller, 1400 Spring, stated he lives six blocks from the project and has spent fifty years in his house. He believes that high density will change the neighborhood. He added that the mansard roof is ridiculous. He wants something that fits that is not a faux addition. Older homes are in the area and there has been a lot of loss of structures. He is opposed to the application. Chair Holder reminded the audience that the HDC does not make zoning decisions. Rebecca Dalton, stated he had nothing to add. Matthew Pekar, 1017 Cumberland, is opposed to the application the same as the rest. He asked if it was confirmed on how far they could dig down for the garage. What if there is a high-water table? Has it been tested? He asked that the item be pulled so that the applicant can talk to people and restructure the application. Melinda Abernathy stated she had nothing to add. Greg Roberts, 1014 Rock, stated he had nothing to add. Nick Schoeneman, 403 E 10th, echoed the other comments in opposition. He stated the building was out of proportion with the rest of the neighborhood. He believes there will be a loss of old growth trees and that two of the four would be taken down. The remaining trees would be jeopardized during construction. Christine Allman, 1515 Cumberland, stated that they followed the guidelines when they added a garage. The project at 10th and Rock should also follow the guidelines. Richard Butler, 417 E 10th, bought his house in 1968 which was built in 1859. He is not opposed to development but this density is too high. The height should be thirty-five feet. Stephanie Roberts of 1014 Rock stated that she did not get a registered letter. It was explained that she was out of the area of influence. Felix Pekar, 1010 S Rock, stated that he enjoyed the architectural details when walking in the neighborhood and he did not see a lot of charming details to the design. He would feel dwarfed by the height. Page 24 of 65 Brian Pitts, 305 Rock and occupant of River Market Towers, spoke in favor of the design. He sells condos downtown and there is a need for condos in this range of 1700 – 2100 square feet. There is a demographic for this size of condo. He does not believe that this development will alienate the other neighbors. Chair Holder asked the applicant if they wanted to address the Commission. Mr. Heiple, stated that they appreciated the comments in the meeting tonight and that they have a lot of work to do. He believes that this would be an asset to the neighborhood. They have made modification to the design and there may not be a happy medium on the project unfortunately. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked what the four conditions were in the staff report. Mr. Minyard replied and read the conditions. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell spoke to the eleven design factors. He believes it is in compliance on proportion, rhythm, wall areas, roof areas, and detailing but all could use some adjustments to the design. Of the design factors where there is still work to be done: the siting and the height. He stated that the height is nine feet over. He said it was misleading to measure height pitched roof versus flat or mansard. On the scale and massing, it needs more setback. The entrance areas are lacking, generally need a front door and front porch. The five materials on the facade may been too many and excessive. He continued that this project makes it difficult to make the case to approve as infill but changes could be made to make it appropriate for the neighborhood. Density is needed and he hopes that they continue to redesign. Vice Chair Russell hoped that they would withdraw and come back again with a substantially changed application. Chair Holder stated that the entrances are confusing as to where they lead. He echoes Vice Chair Russell’s comments on the height and setback. Additional density is not bad for neighborhoods. He hoped that he did not hear that it was this application or nothing. Commissioner Rob Hodge echoes the comments of Chair Holder and Vice Chair Russell. Mr. Heiple stated that he believed that they could comply with the Commissions requests but did not believe that they could change the project enough to satisfy the neighbors. Vice Chair Russell explained the options of a deferral and a withdrawal and the time difference. Mr. Heiple asked the Commission to defer the item to a later hearing. Bo Briggs, the applicant, asked questions about if they could defer thirty or sixty days. After a discussion on the procedures of deferring versus withdrawing, it was decided that the applicant wanted to defer till the March 9, 2020 hearing. Commissioner Frederick asked the applicant if he wanted to defer, submit a redesigned application and then if the Commission still could not pass it, they would withdraw at that time. After that, they would come back with a completely different application. The applicant said that was correct. The applicant asked to defer to the March 9, 2020 hearing. Vote on the bylaw waivers, Vice Chair Russell made a motion to waive the bylaws and Commissioner Robert Hodge seconded. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and two Page 25 of 65 open positions. Vice Chair Russell accepted the vote to waive the bylaws under protest and he would like the bylaws to be rewritten to reflect that. There was a motion to defer the item to the March 9, 2020 hearing by Commissioner Robert Hodge and was seconded by Vice Chair Russell. The vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and two open positions. Chair Holder encouraged everybody to talk about the application and work out a solution. Missy McSwain asked if new notifications will be sent in advance to the March meeting. The answer was yes. STAFF UPDATE: March 9, 2020 Staff received an email dated February 6, 2020 that the applicant wishes to defer to the April 13, 2020 agenda. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 9, 2020 Staff recommends deferral to the April 13, 2020 meeting. COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2020 There was a motion made to defer the item to the April 13, 2020 agenda by Commissioner Amber Jones. It was seconded by Commissioner Lindsey Boerner and was passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. STAFF UPDATE: April 13, 2020 Due to the Mayors announcement of March 16, 2020 that all City of Little Rock boards and commissions meetings were cancelled until further notice because of Covid-19 Corona Virus, the regularly scheduled April 13 and the May 11, 2020 meetings were not held. A meeting was scheduled for May 28, 2020 to hear this item and others. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: May 28, 2020 The applicant submitted new drawings in preparation for the April 13, 2020 hearing. The following is a summary of the latest application. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: SITING: The revised design has deeper setbacks from Rock Street and 10th Street. The building is "L" shaped with the two wings facing the streets and a courtyard and parking underground. The wing facing Rock Street is 135 feet long not including porches. It has a 5 foot setback on the north side. The setback is eleven feet to the body of the building along Rock Street and 6'8" to the front of the porch. The porch is 5'-4" deep. This setback to the front of the balcony was 1'-8" on the previous application. This is an increase of 5'. The wing facing 10th Street is 106'-0" long not including porches. The setback along 10th Street is 9 feet for the body of the building, and the east setback is 2 feet. Subtracting porches along 10th Street, the setback is 4'-8". This setback was 1'-8" on the previous application for an increase Page 26 of 65 of 3'. The setback of the building along the street is less than the setbacks of 913 Rock (12 feet) and Park Place Apartments at 920 Commerce Street at ten feet. This building is wider than other buildings on the adjacent block faces although the facade treatment has attempted to break up the mass through use of different colors and materials. The site coverage, the amount of the site covered by a building, appears to be greater that the buildings in the area of influence. HEIGHT: The revised design is shorter overall. The applicant has provided a drawing showing heights of buildings on the adjacent streets with information gained from the PaGIS topography site where base ground elevation is measured in addition to building heights using LiDAR technology. See page XXX for the graphic. The tallest part of the proposed building, the third floor under the flat roof, is about 36 feet tall from the ground according to the drawings provided. From the architect's drawings below, Park Place Apartments measures 42 feet, 913 Rock measures 23 feet, 922 Rock measures 31 feet and 405 E 10th measures 42 feet. The numbers from PaGIS are from the ground base elevation. These structures have pitched roofs whereas the proposed building will have a combination of pitched roofs and flat roof. Overall, this building will be shorter from the ground than some in the area of influence. Height in MacArthur Park is measured to the highest point of the building from the lowest finished floor according to the guidelines. Zoning measures height from the elevation from the lowest finished floor to the ceiling of the top floor for a flat roof, this would add an additional eight feet to the height counting the basement parking. From the public's viewpoint, this building will have a raised foundation like most others in the district. From the first floor to the roof is 33 feet plus two or three feet of foundation height. This is in the range of 35 to 36 feet. The applicant has provided underground parking that exceeds city standards on quantity and should be appreciated that the owners will have an opportunity to park underground instead of on the street or another surface parking lot. From the street, it should blend in with the heights of the surrounding buildings. 913 Rock is a two story gable to the front with a retaining wall in front. Park Place Apartments at 920 Commerce is a four story building counting the finished attic and is immediately east of the project site . 922 Rock is a two story building with a tall attic space. 1003 Rock (405 E 10th) is also two story building with a tall attic space. The district has always been a mixture of buildings with different heights. PROPORTION: The proportion of this building to others in the area of influence is varied. It shares a similar width to Park Place Apartments (contributing to the district) when comparing the long axis of Park Place. It is wider than all of the other buildings in the area of influence. Just outside the area of influence, it is less wide than Cumberland Towers and the Parkview Towers at 1200 Commerce. The state statute references that review should include both the Area of Influence as well as the entire district. In individual elements of the building, the building is more in proportion to the rest of the area of influence. The windows are vertically oriented and some ganged and some not. The doors are 6'-8" tall with transoms (not overly sized). The window to wall (solid to void) ratio is visually similar to surrounding buildings. Page 27 of 65 RHYTHM: The revised design does not feature the row house patterning of materials. According to the Guidelines, rhythm means a harmonious or orderly recurrence of compositional elements at regular intervals including the placement of doors, and the placement of windows, symmetrically or asymmetrically and their relative proportions. The building has a rhythm with the placement of windows and doors that is reoccurring and orderly horizontally and vertically. The building has been divided between the second and third floor to suggest smaller individual pieces. The building is also rhythmic in the location of balconies. The rhythm of this building most closely matches the rhythm of Park Place apartments. SCALE: The revised design has attempted to decrease the visual scale of the building. The Park Place apartments are four stories with one in the reclaimed attic area. Other buildings in the area are one, two, and two and one-half stories tall. The building scale is similar in footprint area to Park Place Apartments, but not to any other building in the area of influence. Immediately outside the area of influence lie Cumberland Towers and Parkview Towers. The state statute references that review should include both the Area of Influence as well as the entire district. The scale is influenced with the setbacks. The setbacks are similar with 913 Rock and Park Place Apartments, but the width of the existing buildings along 10th Street and Rock Street are less than the proposed building which makes the scale seem larger. The design has been changed to break the building into three pieces to decrease the scale. With insets of 15-25 feet, this should give definition to the three parts of the building. When analyzing the elements of the building with the building itself, the building is in scale with the doors, windows, recesses, etc. For example, the window size is appropriate and in scale for that building. The revised design has attempted to reduce the overall mass of the building. The revised design features the third floor having increased setbacks from the street. The pitched roof extends along both street sides of the development. The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but most of the existing buildings have pitched roofs. The heights of the buildings are measured to the top of the pitched roof per the guidelines. This design features a partial flat roof as the previous design did. This revision adds a pitched area to most of the building. The building has two deeply recessed areas to break up the plane of the elevation. The porches, balconies, and steps will break up the mass on all three levels. The sunken parking is a bonus to the site but makes the first floor be two to three feet above the finished grade which adds to the overall height and mass of the building. The foundation heights on this building will be comparable to others in the area of influence ENTRANCE AREA: On Rock Street, there will be one entrance to the units on the north end of the building. On 10th Street, there will be two. All three will be flush with the facade and feature a front porch over five feet deep with shed roofs above. The plan features balconies on the second and third floors that are three feet deep. The exterior steps to a landing serve a common door that will house an elevator for either three or six units. The revised design has three entry porches that are five feet Page 28 of 65 deep and ten feet wide with handrails on the porch and steps. All of the proposed units will have access to the street level via these porches. The steps to the units will be concrete with a light broom finish. Front porches are a typical feature in the district. On existing structures, 913 Rock has a minimal porch area with the door slightly recessed from the front facade. Most of the structures in the area of influence have front porches with the exception of 920 Rock (the faux New Orleans apartments), the Kadel Cottage at 407 E 10th, and Park Place Apartments. WALL AREAS: The wall areas in the revised design has had the most changes. The design no longer features vertical changes of materials to emulate townhouse or row house developments. The end wall areas (north and east elevations) consist of two types of materials, brick on the first floor and stucco on the top two. The end walls feature nine separate windows. On the street elevations, the first floor will be brick and the second and third will be stucco. The corner unit at 10th and Rock will feature the stone like veneer on the first and second floor only. On the top of the first floor brick, there will be a rowlock course of brick . Separating the second and third floors will be a small overhang that runs the entire length except the two recessed areas. This overhang is supported by decorative brackets. Brick is a very common building material in the district and the area of influence . The windows are vertically oriented and aligned vertically at the rear of the structure. The windows are manufactured by Crestmark, are vinyl, all are 2 over 2 vertical, and will have mullions applied to the exterior of the window. The glazing will be insulated glass. The windows will be a "Sandstone" color. The rough sizes of the windows are 36" x 78" and 48" x 78". Windows installed in the brick or stucco will have a 2" wide brick mold on three sides and an oversized wood-like sill on the bottom. The doors will be by Simpson, will have a stained wood finish and be 36" by 6'-8" tall with a transom above. They are a six panel wood door. ROOF AREA: The roof areas in the revised design has had major changes. There are no mansard roofs in the proposal. The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but the existing buildings have pitched roofs where this proposed building has flat and pitched roofs. The HDC measures the heights of building to the highest point. This revision of the building with the increased setbacks on the third floor with the flat and pitched roofs, now takes the highest point of the building farther from the street to coincide with most of the existing structures in the area of influence. Those have pitched roofs which place the highest point farther away from the street and the viewer. 920 Rock Street is a two story building and has a flat roof. The building will have a combination of a 6/12 pitched roof with a flat roof in the center. The near flat roofs will have a minimal slope to the courtyard and will have a TPO covering . TPO stands for thermoplastic polyolefin, a single-ply roofing membrane that covers the surface of the roof. TPO is actually one of a few different types of rubber, usually a blend of polypropylene and Page 29 of 65 ethylene-propylene rubber. Gutters and downspouts will only be on the rear portions of the building. The pitched roof sections will have an asphalt composition roof and the dormers will have a metal roof on the dormer sections. The roofs on the first floor porches will have the composition asphalt shingles. FACADE: The facade areas, along with the wall areas in the revised design has had the most changes. Wall areas consist of three types of materials as before, brick, stucco and stone like veneer. The end wall areas (north and east elevations) consist of two types of materials, brick on the first floor and stucco on the top two. On the street elevations, the first floor will be brick and the second and third will be stucco. The corner unit at 10th and Rock will feature the stone like veneer on the first and second floor only. On the top of the first floor brick, there will be a rowlock course of brick. Separating the second and third floors will be a small overhang that runs the entire length except the two recessed areas. This overhang sis supported by decorative brackets. The brick on the building will be red brick. The stucco will have a lime wash to give it an aged look. The foundation is covered either by brick or limestone veneer. Brick is a very common building material in the district and the area of influence. Stucco is used as the primary building material at 1107 Cumberland and is a material historically used in gable ends. The limestone tile veneer is not a product that has been used in the district to Staff's knowledge. The windows are vertically oriented and fairly symmetrically placed. The windows and balconies clearly identify the different floors of the building. DETAILING: The revised design features new elements. Detailing of the building is more in in line with Craftsman style of buildings instead of the row house design submitted previously. Here the primary elements with be the railings, balconies, two styles of dormers, and overhang between the second and third floor. Brackets will support the overhangs on the second and third floor roofs. Balconies will be located on the second and third floors. Those balconies and porches will feature metal railings. The dormers have flat and arched topped roofs covered in a metal roofing material. Details are in scale with the building and not overpowering Downspouts will not be located on the street facades. No solar panels are being proposed on this building. SITE DESIGN SIDEWALKS: No change. PLANNED GREEN SPACE: No change. FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS: The revised design has shortened the metal fence at the sidewalk. Page 30 of 65 The fences proposed along the street frontage is a metal 3 feet tall fence by Ameristar Montage Plus fencing. The fence is proposed to be a metal fence with double top rails and pressed flat finials. This is in compliance with the guidelines that state a 3 feet tall fence is appropriate. There will be gates to the porch areas breaking this fence once on Rock Street and two times on 10th Street. The fence will not feature a ninety degree right angle and follow the property line exactly at the corner of 10th and Rock. Instead, it clip the corner by the intersection and feature a 45 degree section to allow for the building sign to be placed on the property outside of the right of way. The side and rear fence (north and east sides) will be a six feet tall opaque wood privacy fence. On the north side, it will start near the rear of the building. On the east side, the six foot tall wood privacy fence is already there. The connections between the lower front yard fences and the taller rear and side yard fences are crucial. The guidelines state that the taller privacy fences should start one-half way back of the primary structure. On the north side, the start of the six feet opaque fence needs to start at a logical point. The property at 913 Rock has a privacy fence in the rear yard. 411 E 9th Street also has a fence that abuts the subject property. There are hvac units to the rear of the building. Mechanical units should be screened. Starting the wood fence as far away from Rock Street yet enclosing any mechanical units would meet the spirit of the guidelines. The metal fence along Rock Street could be extended to meet the starting point of the wood fence if desired. On the east side, the existing parking area has a six feet tall wood privacy fence. A portion of that fence should be removed to conform to the spirit of the Guidelines. It is unknown who owns that particular fence. It is also debatable if that fence needs to remain since it will be about two feet off the face of the building and would have to be removed during construction. Dumpsters should be screened. The dumpster will be shared with Park Place Apartments. The screening required is an opaque fence at least 24" above the top of the dumpster not to exceed 8 feet in height (Sec. 36-523 and Sec. 15-95). LIGHTING: Exterior light fixtures are shown under the porches at the doorways. They are a modified Carriage style wall hung fixture by Kichler, Bay Village series with a Weathered Zinc finish. Additional lights in the courtyard area will not be visible from the street. No Security lighting has been specified. RESIDENTIAL PARKING AND CURB CUTS: The revised plan will not access the site through the Park Place parking lot. Thirty-one parking spaces are being provided underground. These spaces will be accessed through a new curb cut on 10th Street. Thirty-one spaces is in excess of the 22 spaces required by the zoning ordinance. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICE AREAS: No change. ELECTRICAL AND GAS METERS: No change. Page 31 of 65 SATELLITE DISHES: No change. SIGN: No change. SUMMARY: Staff feels that multifamily developments with some craftsman details can be appropriate infill for lots that have been vacant for forty plus years. However, the construction of multifamily can alter the scale of the area as evidenced in the last three multifamily projects that have been built in the district. Materials and facade treatments become important to blend into the neighborhood. Proposed materials have been used in the district or are historic materials that would have been used in the period of significance with the exception of the stone like veneer on the corner unit. The height of the building is similar to others in the district but taller than some in the area of influence. The state statute speaks to being appropriate to the area of influence and the district as a whole. The district has mid-rise towers such as Cumberland and Parkview Towers but the majority of the district is one and two story homes interspersed with the occasional three story apartment building. The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but the existing buildings have pitched roofs where this proposed building has flat and pitched roofs. The revised design with the mansard roofs being replaced with a 6/12 pitched roof has moved the highest point of the building farther from the street. This should lessen the perceived mass and scale of the project. However, if a development is executed well with materials, details, and rhythm of elements, it can be appropriate to the district. Staff feels that this project is readable as an infill project and does not duplicate a historic building. It uses materials that are found in the district or have been used historically. COMMISSION ACTION: May 28, 2020 Chair Jeremiah Russell made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, pursuant to the bylaws, the applicants could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. He continued to say that the makeup of the Commission would not change for the foreseeable future and as discussed in the agenda meeting, the request from the Commission would be to hear the application as it stands instead of engaging in a constant cycle of deferrals. (It is believed that the applicant wished to defer in hopes that the Commission would have new members who would be more favorable to his application.) Tim Heiple, representing the application, stated that they wanted to defer the application Mr. Heiple wanted to clarify that the bylaws had not changed yet. (The by-laws were on the agenda for revision.) It was confirmed that they have not been changed yet. He wanted to take the Commission up on the offer to defer to the next meeting. Chair Russell asked for a motion to not waive the bylaws so that the application would be heard tonight. He made the motion but there was no second. Deputy City Attorney Sherri Latimer stated that the motion was made but failed for a lack of a second. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked why Chari Russell wanted to deny the applicants request to defer by not waiving the bylaws. Chair Russell stated that next month, the makeup of the commission would not change and that there would be a perpetual cycle of deferrals every month. There was a discussion on when the next hearing would be held because of the pandemic. Page 32 of 65 Commissioner Frederick stated that the Commission should not make a decision for the applicants and that it should be deferred. Bo Briggs, the developer, stated that he believed that there were some seats that could be changed on the Commission in July or August. Chair Russell stated that a commissioner continues to serve until replaced. Mr. Briggs asked to defer to the next hearing. A motion was made to defer the item by the Commission to the next scheduled meeting and it was seconded. A roll call vote was taken with the motion passing with 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 recusals (Boerner and Jones.) Per the bylaws, Mr. Minyard stated that the Staff will send the notices for the public meeting and inform every one of the date. COMMISSION ACTION: July 23, 2020 Chair Jeremiah Russell made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners available to vote, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. Tim Heiple stated that he wanted to defer. A motion was made to defer to the next scheduled hearing by Vice Chair Ted Holder and was seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick. The motion passed with 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), 1 recusal (Boerner), and 1 absent (Jones). Per the Bylaws, Mr. Minyard stated that the Staff will send the notices for the public meeting and inform every one of the date. Mr. Minyard, noted for the record that there have been combination of emails, petitions, phone calls, and petitions that were distributed to the commission yesterday afternoon and this morning at 11:00. Page 33 of 65 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: July 23, 2020 APPLICANT: TDF Family Revocable Trust ADDRESS: 1414 Park Lane FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-015 COA REQUEST: Infill House PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1414 Park Lane. The property’s legal description is “Lot 9, Block 157, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This lot has been vacant since January 2020 after demolition due to a fire occurred on December 25, 2019. This project is for the construction of an infill house. This property is also subject to a Board of Adjustment item for a side yard and rear yard setback variance. That will be heard on July 30, 2020. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On January 8, 2020, a COA was issued to Greg Smith for demolition of the reminder of the house after a severe fire that occurred on December 25, 2019. On August 13, 2019, a COA for demolition was withdrawn by the applicant, City of Little Rock Housing and Neighborhood Programs. On November 2, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Pastor C. Harville and Wali Caradine for exterior renovations. The Sanborn maps below show only one structure has been on the site, a one story dwelling known as the Schmelzer House that was demolished earlier this year. No other outbuildings have been shown on the site. Note the two story commercial building at 518-520 E 15th Street immediately to the south. Location of Project Page 34 of 65 1913, 1939, and 1950 Sanborn Map (site is center of image) 1978 photo of Schmelzer house. Perspective of new construction from the southeast. Garage door faces Park Lane. Perspective of new construction from the northeast. Garage door faces Park Lane. The authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to review new construction in the district is authorized by the Sections 14-172-208 of the Arkansas state statute and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report. The authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to review new construction in the district is authorized by the Sections Sec. 23-115, Sec. 23-119, and Sec. 23-120 of the Little Rock Municipal code and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report. The guidelines cover new construction of Residential structures on pages 31-41 and Commercial and Mixed Use Structures on 43-82 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Detached New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings. Site Design is on pages 57 -64 under Section Vii Design Guidelines for Site Design and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report. Page 35 of 65 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is for a single family house that uses the form of a two story commercial structure. The area of the house that is labeled as “Accessory building” is not correct. With the rear porch roof connecting the main block of the house with the “accessory building”, it is technically one structure. For this report, the accessory building and rear porch will be referred to as the western wing of the house. SITING Siting means the location of a building in relationship to the legal boundaries and setbacks, adjacent properties, and the natural conditions of the site. The front yard setback is at 15’ setback on the northeast corner which is typical for the new houses that have been built in the District. The lot is angled on the front so the southeast corner will have an approximately 20' setback. The proposed house will have a zero setback from the north line of the property and a reduced rear yard setback of 5’. The south side yard setback is proposed to be at 10’. The site is primarily flat and terraced with a slope at the front with six steps on the sidewalk to the street. The street is overgrown and the curbs are not visible. See page 17 of this report for the site plan graphic. There are no other structures on this block of Park Lane. The Arkansas Highway Department demolished all of the structures to the north as part of the I-630 construction and the properties to the east and south were demolished as a result of the 1999 tornado or before. Surrounding property to south Project site Surrounding property to north Across street to south Across street Across street to north HEIGHT Height means the vertical distance as measured through the central axis of the building from the elevation of the lowest finished floor level to the highest point of the building. Page 36 of 65 The front facade elevation shows a height of 28’-4” to the top of the parapet from the first floor finished floor. This includes a parapet that ranges from 2’ to 4’ max. There is approximately a four foot difference in the height between the two. The first floor with have a 12’ ceiling height and the second floor will have 10’. The historic homes in the area of influence range in height from 329’ above sea level to 339’ according to PaGIS Lidar elevations on their web app. Assuming that the house will be built on a slab as depicted, and with a base elevation of 308’ for 1414 Park Lane, a projected 28’ tall building, the approximate height will be at 336’ above sea level for the top of the parapet. This height will comply with the area of influence. PROPORTION Proportion means the relationship of height to width of the building outline as well as individual components. Proportion refers to the overall horizontal and vertical relationship of primary building elements to each other as well as to existing buildings immediately surrounding the subject property (360 degree view). Applicants who propose new infill developments within the MacArthur Park Historic District should provide drawings that demonstrate sympathy to the proportions of the prevailing patterns of development within the immediate surroundings of the subject property. Dr awings submitted should be graphic in nature, convey overall proportions and to scale. This house is 40’ wide and 28’ tall, a horizontal rectangular solid. Forty feet wide is wider than all of the houses in the area of influence, they range from 31’ to 35’. With this house having an almost flat roof behind a parapet and not having a gabled roof, it will appear out of proportion with the others in the area of influence and the district at large. The guidelines state it is appropriate to use similar proportions, size, location, and number of openings as buildings with in the area of influence. Buildings within the area of influence have windows on all facades. The front elevation has a garage door (8'x16' wide), a cutout for the front courtyard area (8'x8') and three steel framed openings on the second floor (6'x8' wide) that should read like a window. The size of the doors on the front facade are larger t han others with the placement of a garage door on the front facade. The opening to the front courtyard area is also oversized in relation to the district. The second floor three steel framed openings are in scale with the building but at 6’ tall and 8’ wide, they are larger than the ones on historic homes in the district. This house appears to be proposed to be built on a slab where the majority of houses are built on a raised foundation, most infill houses are also on a raised foundation. RHYTHM Rhythm means a harmonious or orderly recurrence of compositional elements at regular intervals, including the location of doors and the placement of windows, symmetrically or asymmetrically and their relative proportion. Rhythm refers to the pattern and spacing of primary building elements such as openings, projections, and recesses. The rhythm of windows, accent panels, and steel framed openings on the second floor are at regular intervals. The first floor on the north and south (with the exception of one horizontal slit Page 37 of 65 window) are devoid of all windows which is not typical for historic homes in the district. The rhythm of the front facing garage door and the entry to the courtyard are not symmetrically or asymmetrically balanced. This wider than most front facade has not been divided into smaller pieces vertically to visually make the building appear smaller. With the dead end street, the north side of the house will not be easily visible by car, but will be visible by foot traffic on the trail that is located in the interstate right of way that stretches from Rockefeller School to the west. SCALE Scale means the relative dimension, size, degree or proportion of parts of a building to each other or group of buildings. Scale refers to the ratio of height and width and its relationship to the street facade and should be similar in proportion to neighboring buildings. New construction should neither be visually overwhelming or underwhelming when compared to the prevailing patterns of development within the area of influence. Where larger developments are proposed, special attention should be given to the location, siting, setbacks, facade treatments (detailing), and the effect of the proposed development on the streetscape and area of influence as a whole. This building at 40’ wide is generally wider than most homes in the district and wider than those in the area of influence. With the rectangular front elevation, the building appears to be of a larger scale than other homes in the district. It is anticipated that the house will sit about 4’ above the street level making it appear even larger in scale. MASSING Massing means volume, magnitude or overall size of a building. Massing refers to the overall shape of major building volumes and their composition as a whole. This includes porches, roofs, projections, recesses, wings and ells or bays. New construction should be similar in mass to buildings within the area of influence. This will allow the new building to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. This building at 40’ wide is generally wider than most homes in the district. The homes in the area of influence are an average of 32’ wide. With the rectangular front elevation, the building appears to be more massive than other homes in the district. This house features a parapet wall which adds to the massiveness. Porches, projections, wings, bays, etc are not found on the house which makes it read as a brick rectangular solid in the landscape. This main block of the home will be 60' deep, with a rear porch one story connection for approximately 16' and at the very rear of the house, what is labeled as the accessory building, is an additional 12’ deep. All of this is placed on a lot that is shallower than the typical lot. This will result in a 5' rear yard setback. The amount of the lot that is covered by roof is greater than most in the district and will result in the house looking even more massive and out of scale with the other houses. ENTRANCE AREA Entrance area means the area of access to the interior of the building including the design, location, and materials of all porches, stairs, doors, transoms, and sidelights. Primary entrances should front directly onto the primary associated street or the associated primary facade. When designing the main entrance area, applicants should utilize forms, masses, proportions, rhythm, and scale as found within the area of influence for the subject property. Applicants should provide Page 38 of 65 a design that demonstrates sympathy to the proportions of the prevailing patterns of development within the immediate surroundings of the subject property. The entrance area faces onto Park Lane. The entrance area is a recessed entry defined by a void in the brick and a faux transom above the opening. Forms, masses, proportions, rhythm, and scale as found on entrances within the area of influence were not utilized in the design of the entrance. Those houses employ raised front porches that are full or partial width of the houses. WALL AREAS Wall area means the vertical architectural member used to define and divide space including the kind and texture and exposure of wall sidings and trims, and the location, number and design of all window and door openings. Wall area refers to the proportion, rhythm, and scale of walls, their associated openings and their relationship to buildings within the area of influence. Applicants should provide a design that demonstrates sympathy to the proportions, rhythms, and scale of the prevailing patterns of development within the immediate surroundings of the subject property. The primary wall element is brick, standard size. The brick will be in shades of red with some mixed lighter orange and darker brown brick. There will be an accent brick that visually separates the first from the second floor as well as the parapet. The west wing (labeled accessory building) in the rear will be covered in “wave panel” metal siding installed horizontally. “Wave panel” siding is described as horizontally ribbed metal with sharp angles with a 4” repeat on the ribs. In the drawings submitted, the metal panels would be black or very dark. It will be connected to the main body of the house by a covered rear porch. Wall areas are varied by floor. The north side of the building is proposed to be placed on the property line abutting the freeway right-of-way. On the north facade, the first floor is devoid of all windows which is not typical for the district. On the eastern portion of the first and second floor is a void in the brick that is accented with metal crossbars for the courtyard on the first floor and a deck on the second floor. Guardrails at second floor deck first Typical porch in the area at 515 E 15th Street Porch on modern house at 603 E 15th Profile of wave metal siding. Wave Siding Page 39 of 65 floor courtyard side area is to be a cable rail system. A front loading garage door is not appropriate in the district partially because the scale of the door is not seen in the district. Other factors are listed in the site design section. The remainder of the second floor features three large windows that are 6' tall x 8' wide metal or vinyl clad windows. There is an additional area to the back of the lot that reads one and a half story tall and is connected to the house by a rear porch. The south side of the building will feature one horizontal slit window near the center of the building on the first floor. The second floor will feature two large windows that match the ones of the north side, and one brick accent area that would appear as if one of the windows had been bricked in sometime in the past in the center of the building. Two downspouts will be on each the north and south elevations near the corner of the main block of the building. There will not be any trim boards around windows or doors where brick is present, except brick mold jam extensions on all windows which will be black in color. Trim around the door frame will be metal black brick mold. The west wing will have metal panel siding, a horizontal sharp ribbed material with a 4" repeat. The corners will feature 3" corner closure which will emulate vertical trim boards. According to the drawings, the metal siding will be black or a dark color. No color was specified. The wood cypress cladding will be in the interior courtyard of the home and the s creened porch. This will be 6"-8"cypress with a clear finish weather sealant, natural grey tones are desired. This will also be used on the garage door and the gate in the fence to the south of the house. Windows on the second floor are 8' wide by 6' tall. They will have a traditional grill pattern with the grills between two panes of glass. There are 3 smaller windows on the first floor. One on the west elevation, a3'x5' casement egress at master bedroom. Another is on the front elevation, a 2'6"x5' casement egress at guest bedroom which is inside the front courtyard entry. The third is a 1'6"x6' fixed window on the south elevation in the center of the building. This horizontally oriented window set high on the wall is in conflict with the guidelines. The front door will be 3’x7’ tall. The garage door will be 16’x8’ tall. Both will be clad in the cypress wood as is used in the fence and the gate. Page 40 of 65 Drainage boxes and Downspouts will be on the four corners of the main body of the house. They will be black metal. Exterior light fixtures at garage door and over entryway opening will be a gooseneck farm light mount fixture in a dark finish. Lighting at covered front door will be recessed above door in the ceiling/soffit. ROOF AREA Roof area means the outside covering of a building or structure extending above the vertical walls including the form, material, and texture of the roof, and including the slope and pitch, spacing of roof covering; size, design, number and location of dormers, the design and placement of cornices, and the size, design, material and location of chimneys. Applicants should attempt to resemble the prevailing patterns of development within the area of influence of the subject property. The roof will be primarily flat sloped to drain to the four corners of the main body of the structure. The roof will be covered with a TPO membrane. The parapet wall will be a minimum of 2' tall and a maximum of 4' tall. The porch will have a shingled pitched roof with and the west wing will have a flat roof covered with TPO. No historic homes in the district have an all flat or mostly flat roof. They are a combination of gables, gambrels, and an occasional mansard. Some Victorians feature a small flat portion in the center of the roof that is flat, but from the ground, they read as pitched. Flat roofs have been used in the district on commercial structures only. FAÇADE Facade means the face of a building. Façade refers to the textural appearance of the materials that will contribute to a building’s character and appearance. Generally materials for new construction should match or mimic those found in the prevailing patterns of development within the area of influence. However, materials need not be identical to those found within the Historic District if they are complementary, particularly in areas where there is a diversity of materials. The facade features a traditional sized brick with primarily reds with a mix of oranges and dark brown. It features a horizontal course of brick that separates the first from the second floor and another for the parapet. Brick is a common material in the district. The wood clad front loading garage door is to be covered in cypress laid horizontally. Wood is also a commonly used material Goose neck lights at entrance Second floor windows Page 41 of 65 in the district, however, it is usually milled to have overlapping features or meant to be installed in an overlapping fashion. It appears that this wood in the garage door and in the courtyard/entrance way will be laid flush. No detail has been provided. Front elevation of House (Park Lane façade) Side elevation of House (15th Street façade) DETAILING Detailing means architectural aspects that, due to particular treatment, draw attention to certain parts or features of a building. Detailing refers to trim pieces that include moldings, decorative elements and features that are secondary to the major wall surfaces and materials. Historical trim and detail moldings are both functional and help to identify historical styles which may place a building within a specific time period. Modern trim generally does not serve a functional need, but does provide for transition between dissimilar building materials and can be used to enhance a building’s proportions, rhythm, scale and massing to more closely mimic buildings within the area Page 42 of 65 of influence. The detailing that is discernable on this building is the accent brick to separate the floors and parapet, to accent a "bricked in" window on the south facade second floor, the metal x bracing on the courtyard area, and a "transom" window over the entrance area on the east facade. These details do not "provide a visual link to buildings within the area of influence”. While it is not appropriate to add detailing to a new building that is not period appropriate, this building is lacks detailing based on the scale of the building. The other houses in the district and the area of influence have more detail to them. SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES None have been mentioned in the application. SITE DESIGN SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS: No sidewalks are evident at this time on the property. Grading of property should allow for a future sidewalk if it is to be installed within the right of way. A 20’ wide street in conformance with Public Works Standard PW -22 will need to be installed 5’ or more to the north of the driveway to provide a hammerhead turnaround area. If curbs and gutters are found to be absent on the current segment of Park Lane, curbs might be waived. PLANNED GREEN SPACE: Low maintenance plantings have been noted for the front yard area. No hardscape items have been noted. FENCES AND RETAINING WALLS: The fence surrounding the property is to be 6’ tall. The north and east fence (facing the freeway and Park Lane) will be solid brick. The south and west fence will have brick columns at the corners and cypress wood laid horizontally for the remainder. There will be a steel gate with cypress wood inserts at the Park Lane side. It appears that the gate would be in the 4-5’ wide range. The cypress in the fence will be the same material as the garage door. The guidelines state that the backyard fence should start halfway to the back of the main structure. This fence is shown to start 11’ from the front of the house. Halfway back would be an additional 19’. Since only one window is shown on the south facade on the first floor, it would be possible to move the eastern fence farther to the west as long as the horizontal window was in the area enclosed by the fence. LIGHTING No freestanding lights have been noted in the application. Security lighting such as flood lights, should intrude as little as possible on the integrity of the neighborhood. They should be mounted on secondary and rear facades. Shields should focus the light down, not at neighboring property. C. PARKING AREAS, DRIVEWAYS, CURB CUTS AND PAVING Page 43 of 65 Accommodations for automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood as possible. RESIDENTIAL PARKING: The guidelines state: “Parking areas and garages for houses should be located in the rear of the house, with entrance from an alley or from a side driveway. No parking areas should be allowed between a street and the adjacent building, including parking for attached and multi-family housing. Original designs, materials, and placement of driveways should be preserved. If the driveway must lead from the street through a side yard to parking in the rear, brick or concrete tracks or narrow strips are recommended, with grass or ground cover filling the median. Side or rear driveways should be gravel or smooth concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick. Parking areas should be visibly screened on a year-round basis with landscaping, including the use of shrubs and trees. Compatible walls and fences can also be used for screening, either with or without landscaping.” This front loading garage is in direct conflict with this guideline. Front loading garages are foreign to the district and Staff knows of no other front loading garage in the district. Staff acknowledges that there is not an alley in this block, but with the desired side and rear yard setback variances sought, another design could be generated to accomplish a garage in the rear yard. CURB CUTS: The guidelines state: “Curb cuts should be avoided unless necessary to access new parking areas. The new curbing should be constructed to match the historic or traditional curb cuts in the district in size, color, materials, and configuration. In residential areas, new driveways should not be introduced within block faces in which they do not already dominate the development pattern. For areas having lots widths of 50 feet or less, they interrupt the streetscape from both a functional and aesthetic perspective. When new driveways are created, their width should be a minimal as possible. For commercial and mixed use projects, driveways accessing parking areas should occur off of alleys when available. When they must occur off of a street, corner lots should access the parking from the secondary street. Driveways should be as minimal in width as possible.” There will be one curb cut on Park Lane for the driveway. With the proposed plan, the curb cut will be approximately 20’ wide. With a rear garage, the curb cut could be less versus the front loading garage with about twice the width on the curb cut. MECHANICAL SYSTEMS AND SERVICE AREAS Exterior air conditioning/heating system units will be located south side of residence, approximately located near the middle of the length of the south of the house in between the home and fence. Existing utility poles are located to the west of the property. Electrical and gas meters and other mechanical equipment should be located on the rear façade and not visible from the street. Satellite Dishes: None are noted on the application. Recreational Structures: Page 44 of 65 None are noted on the application. SUMMARY OF PRE-APPLICATION HEARING The applicant attended the May 22, 2020 pre application hearing. The comments from the Commissioners are summarized as follows: SITING Given location and no structures, okay with zero lot line. The project does not generally conform to the prevailing development patterns in the immediate surroundings. However, given the location of the property and the likelihood that no other developments will be proposed that would be affected, I feel it reasonable to allow a zero lot line. Although the applicant is asking for for a variance (or something like that) to allow minimal setbacks, there is no problem with that in the absence of other buildings around it. HEIGHT Okay, fits guidelines. The building height is in compliance with the guidelines, No exception taken. At ~ 28 feet, there is no problem. PROPORTION Okay. The building proportion is in compliance with the guidelines, No exception taken. It has the proportions of a warehouse, i.e., it is rectangular. RHYTHM Okay. The building rhythm is in compliance with the guidelines, No exception taken. The windows and openings are regular and similar in size. There is no problem with this factor. SCALE Okay, may not be applicable, lone structure. The building scale is in compliance with the guidelines, No exception taken. Even though this reminds one of a warehouse repurposed for human habitation, it is about the size of many two-bedroom houses. MASSING Okay, square footage and height is compliant. The building massing is in compliance with the guidelines, No exception taken. No problem. See comments on scale, supra. ENTRANCE AREA Glass or wood garage door – okay either way. The building entrance has a recessed front entry more common to commercial retail buildings of the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s, which appears to be the intent. The building also has a front loaded garage which is generally (not) seen within the district as a whole. However, as mentioned above in item 1, I feel lit is a reasonable design typography for this location. Because there is both an opening for an entrance and a garage door, it is acceptable, although different. The garage door now is shown made entirely of glass, which is something I have never seen. The applicant states that he might well change the composition of that door to wood. While either one would probably do, the wood would probably do better because it would make the front solid, whereas glass makes it visually less so. WALL AREAS Okay – brick coursing, etc. The building wall area are in compliance with the guidelines, No exception taken. It is all brick, and nothing unusual. See, facade, infra. ROOF AREA Flat roof, okay. The building has a flat roof more common on commercial structures within the period of significance. Generally residential buildings within the district exhibit pitched roof forms. However, as mentioned previously, I feel it is a reasonable design typology for this location. This is a flat roof, which seems to be what this design calls for. Page 45 of 65 FAÇADE Okay, check with Staff for changes. The building facades are in compliance with the guidelines, No exception taken. As it is presented here, it is all brick and all the same brick except for a course of brick separating the first story from the second story. I think that is fine. DETAILING Brick details, check with Staff. The building details are in compliance with the guidelines, No exception taken. As it is presented here, it is all brick and all the same brick except for a course of brick separating the first story from the second story. I think that is fine. Summary of analysis A sense of place is developed when the character of the area is distinctive. The MacArthur Park has that distinctive sense of place with the predominance of contributing buildings from 1840 to 1960. Geographic boundaries reinforce the sense of place. The district is bounded by Interstate 30 on the east and Capitol Avenue on the north. These two boundaries are more pronounced with the architecture south of Capitol Ave and the physical presence of I-30. On the west boundary, the sense of place changes to a more commercial feel along Main Street. The southern boundary is more fluid. Some historical resources lie just south of the district, the individually listed Van Frank cottages, a group of four colonial revival houses that are in the area of influence and the individually listed Kleinschmidt house on 16th Street. South of 15th Street, the boundary of the local ordinance historic district, many houses have been built. Some are influenced by the forms and massing of the earlier styles present, and some are not. Some would be classified as “replica lite” and some are “contemporary architecture”. The area south of Interstate 630 has a high predominance of contributing resources. In fact, all of the older structures are contributing or individually listed. The non-contributing are all new buildings and the vacant lots. It is true that new construction will probably never be contributing to the district. The question is how the Commission preserves the sense of place north of the boundary at 15th Street. How does the Commission manage change so that the District differs from “Everywhere USA”? Geographic boundaries such as Interstate 30 and use and development boundaries such as the commercial development along Main Street and north of Capitol Avenue create an edge to the district. Creating an edge to the district enhances the arrival into the district. A local example is the Governor’s Mansion National Register District. The edge is not as pronounced as MacArthur Park’s, but one can tell when they enter the district. The 15th street boundary of the district will not change in the foreseeable future. That area was elevated when the district was resurveyed in 2007 and the discussion was made not to expand south. How does the Commission create that edge to the district along 15th Street? The city ordinance states: 23-100 (d) Determination of appropriateness--Generally. Upon receipt of an application for a certificate of appropriateness, required pursuant to the provisions of this article, the historic district Commission shall study the proposal and hold a public hearing to determine the appropriateness of the proposed change in relation to the significant architectural and historic character of the local ordinance historic district. Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations. Page 46 of 65 In its deliberations under this article, the Commission shall not consider interior arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are deemed by the Commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district. Sec. 23-120. (f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The Commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d). These are the houses within the area of influence: 1409 Commerce, contributing, a two story colonial revival house built in 1895 1423 Commerce, contributing, a one story craftsman bungalow, built in XXXX Outside of the district, but within the area of influence: 1501 Commerce, a one story ranch duplex. 509 E 15th, a one story duplex. The individually listed Van Frank Cottages, at 515, 517, and 519 E 15th ( and 1510 Park) one story colonial revival houses built in 1908. 603 E 15th, a one story new construction. This area was hit by the tornado of 1999 and there were significant number of demolitions in the area before and after the tornado. While it has taken several years for the market to start to recover in this area, the Historic District Commission has been active in the planning for the eventual appearance of infill houses in the area starting with the Heiple Widower Plan in 2000 and revisions of the guidelines in 2016 to greatly expand the text and guidance on infill which included consultants. The first team of consultants drafted a revision of the guidelines which were not accepted by the Commission. The second consultant provided on site discussion and guidance on a tour of the local areas. While the final guidelines were primarily drafted by committee, this does show that the Commission has been active and concerned with the infill of the neighborhood and the area ravaged by the tornado. On page 41 of the current guidelines, there are photos of new infill both single family and multifamily. These photos were added only in the last revision of the guidelines. The Commission does not establish precedence, these were provided to show examples of infill structures. Some of the structures could be placed in the "contemporary architecture" column and some could be placed in the "replica lite" column. The district itself has a period of significance from 1840 to 1960 which encompasses many styles of architecture. Not all infill homes need to follow one architectural style, but they need to "blend with the district" as stated in Sec. 23-120. (f) "Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The Commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d)." Those factors are the eleven design factors listed in this report. While the Commission has never, nor should it ever, state that a project must meet a threshold percentage of the factors, this project does not meet enough to warrant support of Staff. This application is attempting to recreate a commercial style building to be used as a residence where no commercial styled building ever existed. According to the Sanborn maps shown earlier in this report (1913, 1939 and 1950 maps verified), the Schmelzer House that was demolished was the only building ever on the 1414 Park Lane site. This site is not next to an extant commercial structure, nor is it on a street corner. Page 47 of 65 On site design, the guidelines state that the fence should start farther back on the structure than is proposed. This could be accomplished to screen eh mechanical units and provide privacy to the horizontal window while moving the front of the fence westward. For residential parking, this front loading garage is in direct conflict with this guideline. Front loading garages are foreign to the district and Staff knows of no other front loading garage in the district. When summarizing the eleven design factors: Siting and Height are conforming to the guidelines. A factor that it partially accomplishes is the Wall Areas for the choice of traditional sized brick and wood. On Facades, the use of brick as the primary element on the main block of the house is to be commended. The detail of the wood siding for the garage door and the entry way has not been provided. Factors that it totally fails on are Proportion, Rhythm, Scale, Massing, Entrance Area, Roof Areas, and Detailing. On proportions, there is a general lack of openings on the house and when they occur, they are larger than the area of influence. The lack of a raised foundation is unusual for the area. On Rhythm, the upper floor is in rhythm with itself and not the rest of the district. The downstairs, mostly devoid of windows in not in conformance with the guidelines. On scale, it is wider than any building in the area of influence. On massing, the structure is occupying a large percentage of the lot and has reduced north and west setbacks. With Entrance area, the proposed recessed entry is foreign to the area of influence. The introduction of a flat roof does not follow the guidelines. For a building this size, details are few. How does the Commission create that edge to the district along 15th Street? How does the Commission mange change in the district and still preserve the “sense of place”? By following the guidelines on new construction. New construction should follow the guidelines on the design factors that matter most. Staff feels that this project lacks in those areas. Most importantly, no structure in the district, historic or infill, has a front loading garage. Front load ed garages do not blend with this district. Secondly, no historic house in the district has a flat roof with a parapet. These two facts alone should make this structure not appropriate for the district. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial. COMMISSION ACTION: July 23, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation of the item including the reasons for denial. The applicant, Tim Fox, made a presentation to the Commission. He spoke that if it was one block south, it would be out of the district. He showed a photo of a building that was next door to his lot that was a mixed use building. He spoke of other flat roof structures in the district and of emails in support of the application. Page 48 of 65 Mr. Fox stated that the use is not appropriate and argued against using the Residential Standards versus the Commercial Standards. He spoke of the pre-application meeting and its process. Mr. Fox stated that he was required to get a letter from Arkansas Department of Transportation for the zero setback on the north side. They have since modified their application to be one foot off of the line from maintenance of scuppers and downspouts. He stated that the Board of Adjustment was okay with the rear yard setback. He continued that the height at 28’ is less than the 35’ maximum. He continued that he has made a substantial commitment to the project with buying the lot. Mr. Fox asked for a positive vote. Commissioner Christine Aleman asked about the color of wood in the photo. Chair Jeremiah Russell said that color is not something that we consider. Mr. Fox suggested looking at the web links that were provided. Frederick Gentry, a Pettaway neighborhood resident, spoke in favor of the application and said that the house adds to the neighborhood with an old and new mix of buildings. Greg Smith, a Pettaway neighborhood resident, stated that he lives in a front loaded garage house with no windows and that it works with the neighborhood. Matt Pekar, 1017 Cumberland Street, spoke about the brick on the fence and the definition between the house and fence. He lives next to the Violin Shop and does not oppose a commercial looking building. He stated that he could not visualize what the garage door would look like but the Violin Shop has nice garage doors that mimic historic ones. Patricia Blick, Executive Director of the QQA, stated that the QQA was supportive of infill. However, the advocacy committee met on this item and the committee cannot support the application. Dale Pekar, 1010 Rock Street, agrees with Staff on the recommendation. He stated it looked like a bunker with a front loaded garage. He wanted to register his opposition and asked the Commission to deny the application. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that he disagreed with the staff report. He stated that the houses in the Pettaway neighborhood do not matter because they are not in the MacArthur Park District. He spoke of the 1999 tornado and the lack of anything around the building. He stated it was no larger than most houses and believes it will blend. He acknowledged the garage doors on the front of the building. Previously, the Commission denied a project with a 12’ wide door on the 16’ wide building. This project has an entry way in addition to the garage door. There is a difference. He stated that this property is on the edge of MacArthur Park and that no one perceived the boundary and that it should not distract. Commissioner Lindsey Boerner stated she has been though the Commission as an applicant and her garage door is a side facing one. She understand the concept of the design and thinks it is a good opportunity on the southern edge of the district. She stated she agreed with Vice Chair Holder. Page 49 of 65 Commissioner Aleman stated that after driving by the site, she believes that it would be less visible in that location. Chair Russell provided a summary for the pre-application meeting responses and stated he supported the application. A motion was made to approve the application by Commissioner Robert Hodge and was seconded by Vice Chair Ted Holder. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 0 noes, and 1 absent (Jones). Page 50 of 65 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435 www.littlerock.gov STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. VII D. DATE: July 23, 2020 APPLICANT: Staff ADDRESS: District wide REQUEST: Revise By-laws The HDC By-Laws do not address ex-parte communication. As these communications are a reoccurring issue the HDC has decided it would be in the Commission’s best interests to amend its By-Laws to include a provision on ex-parte communication. Such an amendment would take the form of adding an Article IX. The HDC has unfettered discretion to draft this By-Law provision However; there are possible amendments which highlight the key issues. (The differences between the versions are highlighted.) The Commission is by no means limited to these possibilities. Commissioners are welcome to make other suggestions. Once a final decision is made, the Commission will amend the By-Laws pursuant to Article VII. Amendments. If there are any other sections of the By-Laws which need to be amended, it is advised that the Commission address all By-Law amendments at the same time. The current set of by-laws were adopted in 2011. Article IX. Ex-Parte Communications ISSUE 1: Who cannot communicate with a Commissioner ex-parte? VERSION 1.1: Any communication regarding a matter the Historic District Commission is to decide upon between a person who is not a member of the Historic District Commission or affiliated with the Commission and a Commissioner outside a public meeting is considered an “ex-parte communication.” Ex-parte communications are prohibited. VERSION 1.2: Any communication regarding a matter the Historic District Commission is to decide upon between an applicant or any person who is professionally affiliated with the applicant regarding a matter before the Historic District Commission and a Commissioner outside a public meeting is considered an “ex-parte communication.” Ex- parte communications are prohibited. Page 51 of 65 Analysis of Issue 1: Version 1.1 prohibits all citizens from talking to a Commissioner where version 1.2 only prohibits the applicant and his/her team. Staff is of the opinion that version 2 better addresses the problems Commissioners face concerning ex-parte communications. Version 1.1 is the stricter and would qualify any and all communication outside of HDC meetings as ex-parte. ISSUE 2: What happens in the event of an ex-parte communication? VERSION 2.1: In the event of an ex-parte communication, a Commissioner shall disclose the communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting and recuse himself from all Commission discussions and votes concerning the matter which was the subject of the ex-parte communication. VERSION 2.2: In the event of an ex-parte communication, a Commissioner shall disclose the communication and the contents thereof to the Commission at a public meeting. Analysis of Issue 2: Version 2.1 states that when an ex-parte communication happens, that Commissioner must disclose the information to the HDC and recuse. Version 2.2mandates disclosure but the Commissioner retains his/her voting privileges. Issue 2 is tied to the results of Issue 1. The following are the four scenarios of the possible outcomes of the proposed amendments. 1.1 and 2.1 All citizens included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation and recuse. All Commissioners who have had any communication with anyone who is not a member of the Commission or its Staff would have to disclose the conversation and recuse from a vote on the matter. This could result in hampering the function of the Commission by having multiple recusals on high profile items. 1.2 and 2.1 Only the applicant and his/her team included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation and recuse. All Commissioners who have had any communication with the applicant or his/her team would have to disclose the conversation and recuse. This would potentially have a lesser result than the above-mentioned scenario but could still hamper the function of the Commission by having multiple recusals on high profile items. 1.1 and2.2 All citizens are included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation but can vote. All Commissioners who have had any communication with anyone who is not a member of the Commission or its Staff would have to disclose the conversation but could still vote. This could include unsolicited emails which were not replied to and thwarted conversations about an item (see below). Page 52 of 65 1.2 and 2.2 Only the applicant and his/her team are included in the definition of ex-parte communications, and Commissioners are to disclose the conversation but could still vote. All Commissioners who have had any communication with the applicant or his/her team would have to disclose the conversation but could still vote. At the beginning of each item at the public hearings, Staff (Planning or City Attorney’s office) will have to ask if there are any Commissioners who have had ex-parte communications and details or evidence of such (email, phone, in person conversation, if the Commissioner engaged in dialogue, etc.). There should be an opportunity for discussion and, when needed, a vote that the Commissioner will recuse or remain and vote based on each instance. ADDITIONAL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION A matter for consideration is the extent to which the Commissioner participated in the ex-parte communication. Email in particular poses a problem. Commissioners cannot avoid unsolicited emails. However, Commissioners do not have to reply to emails. (All emails which are received by Commissioners on the item should be forwarded to Staff to include in the record.) Commissioners also cannot stop a person approaching them at the grocery store, street, etc., to discuss an item. What Commissioners can do is to thwart the conversation by stating “If I have a conversation with you about the project, I may have to recuse on the item. Please send the Staff any concerns you have on the project. The Staff can discuss the project with you.” It is advisable for the Commissioner who has had such a conversation to email Staff with a synopsis immediately after the conversation when the discussion is still fresh in her/her memory. This email should be entered as part of the record. COMMISSION ACTION: December 9, 2019 This item was deferred to the January 13, 2020 agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Robert Hodge and seconded by Commissioner Lauren Frederick and the motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 vacant positions. STAFF UPDATE: January 13, 2020 After the hearing of December 9, 2020, the following additions to the item are proposed. There is a proposal to strike this section since it is not a policy that Staff follows. Article V. Conduct of Business D. Special Rules of Procedure [p. 6] 6. The Secretary of the Commission shall affix an identification tag which includes the case number and an exhibit designation in sequence beginning with “A” to each item, visual or written, formally presented to the Commission at the time of the material’s introduction to the Commission, which is designated by the applicant or other parties testifying before the Commission as a submission to form part of the record upon which the Commission makes its decision. Page 53 of 65 This section would change the requirement to waive the by-laws when an applicant wants to defer at the meeting. The new text would allow them to ask any time before the hearing or at the hearing. E. General Policies [p. 7] 8. Deferrals. An application for a COA which has been advertised for public hearing may be deferred only as follows: a. Deferral Requested by the Applicant (1) The applicant's request for deferral must may be submitted in writing prior to the date of the advertised hearing or may be made at the hearing. (2) The request for deferral must state the reason that a deferral is needed and must specify the proposed length of the deferral. (3) The applicant's request for deferral must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission members present. (4) No single request for deferral by an applicant shall be granted for more than one hundred (100) days, except by unanimous vote of all Commission members present. (5) In no case shall more than two requests for deferral by an applicant be granted by the Commission. (6) Notice of the date of the deferred public hearing shall be sent as required in Article IV above. (7) If the applicant is not prepared to move forward after two deferral requests have been granted by the Commission, the following options are available to the Commission as circumstances require: (i) Hold the public hearing and grant or deny the application; (ii) Defer the public hearing on the Commission's own motion for cause; or (iii) Dismiss the application without prejudice or with prejudice against refilling the same application within one (1) year. COMMISSION ACTION: January 13, 2020 Sherri Latimer, City Attorney’s office, led the presentation of the item. Commissioner Robert Hodge stated that the Commissioners should disclose all conversations. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that they could not be like Mark Twain’s perfect juror, who knows nothing and can’t read. The Commissioners live in this society. They have a responsibility to be objective and not be swayed by citizen comment. Ms. Latimer recommended that all emails and letters be forwarded to the Staff for distribution t o all Commissioners and the project file. Ms. Latimer will draft something and send to the Commission ahead of the next meeting. The Commissioners were encouraged to forward any other items for by-law changes to the Staff for inclusion in the staff report. The item will be placed on the February 2020 agenda for changes. Chair Russell asked if the Commission was amenable to revising the text on the five-day notice for withdrawal. On that, Mr. Minyard explained that it was there for courtesy of the public. If Staff Page 54 of 65 knows an item will be on deferral, they can notify the public not to attend in advance. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that he was in favor of the change in the by-laws. Ms. Latimer stated that there will be a vote next month for the by-law changes and that this discussion today will satisfy the requirements for the by-laws to be changed. STAFF UPDATE: February 10, 2020 The proposed amendment will be presented to the Commission for adoption. A clean version of the by-laws will be presented at the meeting to be signed with the amendment date on the original. COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, presented the item to the Commission with the two items that had been presented earlier. Page Wilson, 324 E 15th Street, stated that the by-laws mean a lot and that that the Commission should slow down and think twice about revising the by-laws. He read Article II Purpose to the Commission. He said that in training he attended, that the Commission should be consis tent in dealing with applications. He had three suggestions. First, place the by-laws on the website and give to each applicant. He stated as an applicant, he has had inconsistencies in procedure. Secondly, he questioned if they follow Roberts Rules or not. Chair Jeremiah Russell said that was outlined in the by-laws. Thirdly, the order of business should be done. Shawn Overton, City Attorney’s Office, reminded Mr. Wilson that if he had a change to propose, please state it. Otherwise, this was not a discussion on how meetings were being conducted or if the by-laws were being followed. Mr. Wilson stated that there were portions of the by-laws that he liked. He continued talking on the fact that consistency matters and wanted the Commission to increase the number of definitions in the by-laws. He stated that he was in support of removing the five day notice on deferrals. He asked the Commission to reconsider the time constraint on reconsiderations and withdrawals. (E General Policies 7d. and 6b) He warned the Commission about precedence and treating people evenly. He would like to revisit and arbitrary numbers in the by-laws that dictate time. He continued that he would like the Commission to review the precedents policy. (E General Policies 10). Mr. Wilson feels that the Commission has used precedents to vote for or against certain people in the past. Vice Chair Holder said that the text currently says what Mr. Wilson wants to change it to. Chair Russell said that each case was different since the Commission considered context of site on each. Mr. Wilson spoke of submitted materials being kept for 90 days (General Policies 12 Submitted materials). He spoke that the number should be reduced. He noted that the procedure of administrative appeal should be defined. Chair Russell said that is not really a by-law issue. Mr. Overton stated that a lot of dates that Mr. Wilson is calling arbitrary are in fact based on state law and city ordinance. Chair Russell asked if there were any specific changes to the by-laws that he would like to propose. Mr. Wilson stated no. He did encourage the Commission to have more discussion and dialogue on the item. Page 55 of 65 Frances Missy McSwain, 407 E 10th, asked if the by-laws were on the website. Staff responded no. She had a question on how are the by-laws interpreted per ex parte communication in relation to Staff communication and how and when those comments are related to the Commission. Chair Russell spoke of a request to change “E General Policies 6 b” to clarify what a material change is. He suggested maybe a list of criteria: design, materials, footprint, orientation, etc. and reference the 11 design factors. He recommended changing the wording to substantial change with a definition in the by-laws to be referenced in the Guidelines. He asked for more clarity on what that means. Vice Chair Ted Holder spoke about “E General Policies 7 d’. He needed clarification on the 12 months and what does substantial change mean. Chair Russell said that it would be worth considering but in one instance they would be amending the Denied or Amended Application and the other would before withdrawn applications. Chair Russell stated that he thinks the time frame is reasonable. Chair Russell asked if anybody else had any ideas on the ex parte communication issue. Vice Chair Holder asked Mr. Minyard about the items that were to be voted on tonight. Mr. Minyard read the text of what was on the agenda. Chair Russell asked to look at the withdrawal section and be consistent on material changes. Mr. Minyard said that he would check the rest of the by-laws to make sure that there was consistency on changes through the documents. Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to defer the item to the March 9, 2020 meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent (Hodge) and 1 Open Position. STAFF UPDATE: March 9, 2020 Staff has reviewed the minutes from the last meeting and the current by-laws for consistency. The following sections were reviewed at the request of the Commission, Staff, or public input in order they appear in the by-laws. This includes all previous and new items. · IV. A regular Meetings 3. Meeting in a location that is more informal. · V. A Order of Agenda Adding national Register Nominations before COAs. · V. E 6b Reconsideration What is the definition of a material change? · V. E 7a Reconsideration Waiving five day notice for withdrawals. · V. E 7d Reconsideration What is the definition of a material change? · V. E 8a Reconsideration Waiving five day notice for deferrals. · V E 10 Precedents how does precedence work · V E 12 submitted materials reduce 90 day requirement. Page 56 of 65 · V E 13 Ex-Parte Communication Define ex-parte communication and process. Analysis of each bulleted item: IV. A regular Meetings 3. “The Commission shall meet regularly in the Board of Directors’ Chamber or such other places as directed by the Commission.” This is in response to a comment that the meeting should be conducted more informally and held in a location that was less formal. A law was passed in 2019 that required all public meetings to be recorded for sound. The City Board Chambers is the only meeting space where microphones are provided which provides for a clearer audio file to be made. The use of informal style setting for the Historic District Commission meeting is well suited for retreat and work sessions. However, when the Commission conducts its business, a more formal setting and decorum are important to the performance of decision making responsibilities that can affect the property rights of applicants and concerned citizens. A formal setting with an stablished agenda and adherence to rules of order help to ensure procedural due process where citizens’ request and concerns are received and considered respectfully before a decision is made. A very informal setting with interruptions and multiple conversations would make it difficult to establish a clear record of the Commission’s decision- making process. Without a clear, detailed record of the meeting, it would be difficult to defend the Commission’s action on appeal or other litigation. Two years ago, the Commission instituted a Pre-application Meeting for the purpose of discussing an application with a committee of Commissioners in an informal manner before the application is filed. Those pre-application meetings are informal and all applicants are encouraged to request a meeting, even if it is not required. Staff is not in support of any change to this section. V. A Order of Agenda “All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the topics and cases in the following sequence: 1. Roll Call. 2. Finding of a Quorum. 3. Approval of Previous Minutes. 4. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness. 5. New Certificates of Appropriateness. 6. Other Matters. 7. Adjournment.” This request is from Staff. This would change the by-laws to the practice that is currently in place. National Register nominations are heard before the Deferred and New Certificates of Page 57 of 65 Appropriateness as a courtesy to the State because of the brevity of the items. The change would be to add a new number 4 “National Register Nominations” and renumber the following items. The amended text would read: All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the topics and cases in the following sequence: 1. Roll Call. 2. Finding of a Quorum. 3. Approval of Previous Minutes. 4. National Register Nominations. 5. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness. 6. New Certificates of Appropriateness. 7. Other Matters. 8. Adjournment. Staff is in support of this change to this section. V. E 6b Reconsideration b. Reconsideration. No application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property shall be considered if a former application embracing the same property or a portion thereof has been denied by the Commission within a period of 12 months preceding the application, except for cause and with unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting. If the Commission decides to rehear a case it will require legal ad, notice to owners, etc., as required for new application. If an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property embracing the same property or a portion thereof has been previously denied by the Commission or withdrawn by the applicant, the Commission shall not grant a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for such property unless a material change has been made by the applicant, which change is clearly designated by the applicant in the application, in the proposed erection, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures on such property or portions thereof from that contained or proposed in the previous application(s) previously been denied by the Commission. This change has been voiced by Commissioners and citizens alike. What is the def inition of a material change? A definition could be written for this but the first paragraph above is most important in this discussion. For any item to be reconsidered, the Commission must unanimously approve that it is, in fact, a material change by a vote of all members present before it can be reconsidered. A definition of the words material change could be a moot point if the members did not agree to reconsider it. A list of criteria could be helpful for Staff and the Commission to determine if it is a material change: design, materials, footprint, orientation, etc. or referencing the 11 design factors. Discussion was also on changing the word “material” to “substantial’ or another word. Adding a definition in the by-laws to be referenced in the Guidelines was also noted. The question is are all of the design factors even when considering if something is materially different enough. Is Page 58 of 65 detailing the same level as setback, height, and mass? Is changing the exterior materials sufficient enough to reconsider it? How many factors need to be addressed to make it a different application? What makes one house materially different from the previous house that was denied? A definition of material change could be stated to have a material change to a ma jority of the eleven design factors. The factors are: Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Scale, Massing, Entrance Area, Wall Areas, Roof Area, Facade, and Detailing. There are definitions in the ordinance that are repeated in the guidelines for these factors. The change would be to add a new definition of "material change". An additional change would add the words “which have” that would further clarify the meaning. The added text would be added as a third paragraph and would read: b. Reconsideration. No application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property shall be considered if a former application embracing the same property or a portion thereof has been denied by the Commission within a period of 12 months preceding the application, except for cause and with unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting. If the Commission decides to rehear a case it will require legal ad, notice to owners, etc., as required for new application. If an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property embracing the same property or a portion thereof has been previously denied by the Commission or withdrawn by the applicant, the Commission shall not grant a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for such property unless a material change has been made by the applicant, which change is clearly designated by the applicant in the application, in the proposed erection, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures on such property or portions thereof from that contained or proposed in the previous application(s) which have previously been denied by the Commission. For the purpose of these by-laws, a material change shall be considered to be a revision to a design that has revised a majority of the design factors as listed in the municipal code under Chapter 23, Sec 23-120 (d). Those factors are as follows: Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Façade, Scale, and Massing. Staff is in support of this change to this section. V. E 7a Reconsideration 7. Withdrawals. An application which has been advertised for public hearing may not be withdrawn by the applicant except as follows: a. The applicant’s request for withdrawal of an application must be submitted in writing at least five working days prior to the date of the advertised hearing. Page 59 of 65 This change was proposed by the Commission. Staff added this to be consistent with the latter proposed change. A similar provision is included in the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment by-laws. It was placed there for courtesy of the public. If Staff knows an item may be withdrawn, they can notify the public in advance. The HDC can chose to approve or deny the request for withdrawal. This change would remove the need for additional votes to waive the by- laws and then to pass the deferral. The amended text would read as such: a. The applicant’s request for withdrawal may be submitted prior to the date of the advertised hearing or may be made at the hearing. Staff is not in support of this change to this section. V. E 7d Reconsideration 7. Withdrawals. An application which has been advertised for public hearing may not be withdrawn by the applicant except as follows: a. The applicant’s request for withdrawal of an application must be submitted in writing at least five working days prior to the date of the advertised hearing. b. The request for withdrawal must state the reason for the withdrawal. c. The applicant’s request for withdrawal must be approved by a majority vote of the Commission members present. d. If the application is withdrawn, the same application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may not be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year. This change has been voiced by Commissioners and citizens alike. Staff added this to be consistent with the previous proposed change. See analysis in V E 6b above. The proposed text would be read as follows: d. If the application is withdrawn, the same application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may not be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year. For the purpose of these by-laws, a material change shall be considered to be a revision to a design that has revised a majority of the design factors as listed in the municipal code under Chapter 23, Sec 23-120 (d). Those factors are as follows: Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Façade, Scale, and Massing. Staff recommendation is forthcoming. V. E 8a Reconsideration 8. Deferrals. An application for a COA which has been advertised for public hearing may be deferred only as follows: a. Deferral Requested by the Applicant (1) The applicant’s request for deferral must be submitted in writing at least five Page 60 of 65 working days prior to the date of the advertised hearing. This change was proposed by the Commission. A similar provision is included in the Planning Commission and the Board of Adjustment by-laws. It was placed there for courtesy of the public. If Staff knows an item may be withdrawn, they can notify the public in advance. The HDC can chose to approve or deny the request for deferral. This change would remove the need for additional votes to waive the by-laws and then to pass the deferral. This change would remove the need for additional votes to waive the by-laws and then to pass the deferral. a. Deferral Requested by the Applicant (1) The applicant’s request for deferral may be submitted in writing prior to the date of the advertised hearing or may be made at the hearing. Staff is not in support of this change to this section. V E 10 Precedents 10. Precedents. No action of the Commission shall be deemed to set a precedent. Each item docketed shall be decided upon its own merit and circumstances attendant thereto. This item was recommended by a citizen. The Commission stated, in the hearing, that the by- laws do not need to be changed to reflect what was requested. Staff is not in support of any change to this section. V E 12 submitted materials 12. Submitted Materials. All materials, written, graphic or otherwise, presented to the Commission for consideration shall become the possessions of the Commission for a period of 90 days after the Commission’s action. In the event that legal measures contesting the Commission’s decision are taken within this time period, said materials shall remain in the possession of the Commission until such time as these legal measures are exhausted In fifteen years of staff memory, only once has an applicant asked for a presentation board to be returned. Any item that has been considered to make a decision on the Commission’s part, should be a part of the record. Large format items presented at the meeting will need to be copied or digitized to become part of the record. This may not be instantaneous after the meeting. Staff is not in support of any change in this section. V E 13 Ex-Parte Communication Currently, there is no language in the by-laws concerning ex-parte communication. See above analysis for a discussion of ex-parte communication. Page 61 of 65 A question arose by a citizen concerning communication that is given to staff. Our current practice is that written correspondence that is received by Staff prior to the distribution of the agenda, is sent along with the agenda. Correspondence that is received after the agenda is distributed at the agenda meeting. The following final text is proposed to be added in a separate paragraph to be numbered 13. 13. Ex-Parte Communication. In the event a non-Commissioner discusses a matter which is to come before the Historic District Commission with a Commissioner, that Commissioner shall disclose the conversation and the contents thereof to the Commission on the record in a timely manner. Commissioners shall forward all ex-parte written communications to staff for inclusion in the record and shall do so in a timely manner. Staff is not in support of the addition to this section. The following comments by citizens were recommended for review by the Commission. These are not items that can be addressed in the by-laws and have not been included in this review. · Can ex-officio members of the Commission vote on items heard by the HDC? They cannot per Sec.23-97 of the HDC ordinance, § 14-172-206. Commission; membership, AR ST § 14-172-206, Sec. 2-110 of the City Municipal code, and § 14-47-120. City manager; powers and duties, AR ST § 14-47-120. · The by-laws do not clarify whether the HDC functions as a quasi-legislative or quasi- judicial body. · Should the by-laws be placed on the website? The by-laws are available upon request in electronic or printed copy. Staff surveyed and the vast majority of Commissions do not place their by-laws online. · The procedures of administrative appeals should be defined. To do so would not be stated in the by-laws. This is addressed in the city ordinance and state law. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: March 9, 2020 See individual sections under Staff Update dated March 9, 2020 in this document for all recommendations. COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2019 Mr. Minyard stated that a new handout was given to the Commissioners in the agenda meeting that has a full markup set of the by-laws and has changes in red letters. The Staff report has excerpts instead of the full text. After discussion tonight, a clean version and a marked up version will be given to you to vote on a later date. Staff added some items to the Staff report to have the Commission discuss. Ms. Latimer interjected that Chair Jeremiah Russell wanted to add a section to require the by-laws to be reviewed every three years. Chair Russell asked if anyone wanted to have a discussion on any of the items. A discussion was held on Article V E 6 b concerning the proposed definition of material change. Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that the material change. The term material is used a lot in the legal realm and the Supreme Court has made a ruling in what the term means. In that context, any change to one factor alone would be a material or substantial change. The wording to change a majority of the factors is not the best language to have, it is too narrow. Page 62 of 65 Mr. Minyard stated that Staff had put something down to start that conversation with the Commissioners to determine the best language. He noted that two paragraphs up, it states that it will require unanimous approval by the Commission to reconsider an item. In the past, Staff has recommended that an item be reconsidered and it was voted to reconsider and to review the COA on the same hearing. Mr. Minyard stated that the same text appears in Article V E 7 d except under the Withdrawal section. Vice Chair Holder stated that he would take a look at the language and draft something that he would send to Staff for inclusion on the topic of material change. On Article V E 7 a Chair Russell stated that he thought all of the Commissioners were okay with the proposed language. On Article V E 8 a (1) Chair Russell stated that he thought all of the Commissioners were okay with the proposed language. On 13 Exparte Communication, Chari Russell read the proposed language. He also stated that an email from Dale Pekar and summarized Mr. Pekar’s comments. Chair Russell asked if any Commissioners had any comments on this or if it was acceptable the way it was worded now. Vice Chair Holder stated that he liked the way it was written now. He added that a definition of exparte should be added to the by-laws. Vice Chair Russell suggested that a provision be added to review the by-laws every three years. With that schedule, you should be able to hit all Commissioners with the rotation of Commissioner terms. Mr. Minyard asked if the Staff could figure out where best to put that clause. Sheri Latimer, City attorney’s office, stated that the final draft, presented in text form, would be presented in April and the final adoption and vote would be held in May unless there are additional changes. Mr. Minyard addressed other changes that have been proposed by Staff and citizens with Staff recommendations. The rest of the changes as stated in the Staff Report dated March 9, 2020 were presented. Commissioner Christina Aleman commented on some typos in the draft. Staff acknowledged them and will sure it is changed for the next draft. Mr. John McCarty, spoke to the board about the War Memorial Golf Course. Chair Russell stated that this was public comment for the By-laws and welcomed any comment on the bylaw changes. Mr. McCarty continued to speak of the golf course. Chair Russell told him that Citizen Communication will be at the end of the hearing and he could speak at that time. Mr. McCarthy stated that since it was not a crowded meeting, he wanted to speak now. Vice Chair Holder continued that the agenda will be followed in order. It was repeated that the agenda will be followed and it will not be long before Citizen Communication is on the agenda. STAFF UPDATE: May 28, 2020 Due to the Mayors announcement of March 16, 2020 that all City of Little Rock boards and Commissions meetings were cancelled until further notice because of Covid-19 Corona Virus, the Page 63 of 65 regularly scheduled April 13 and the May 11, 2020 meetings were not held. A meeting was scheduled for May 28, 2020 to hear this item and others. There have been two changes suggested by Commissioner Ted Holder to the draft that was distributed for the February meeting. The definition of material change has been modified in two places to read as stated below. The first reference is in E General Polices, 6 b. For the purpose of these by-laws, a material change shall be considered to be a revision to a design that has revised one or more of the design factors as listed in the municipal code under Chapter 23, Sec 23-120 (d) in a way that makes the application significantly different. Those factors are as follows: Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Façade, Scale, and Massing. The new draft also added language to clarify that withdrawn application must wait the 12 months unless a material change has occurred in the application. Here is that language as stated in E General Polices, 7 d. If the application is withdrawn, the same application for a Certificate of Appropriateness may not be resubmitted for a period of one (1) year unless a material change has been made by the applicant, which change is clearly designated by the applicant in the application, in the proposed erection, alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures on such property or portions thereof from that contained or proposed in the previously withdrawn application. For the purpose of these by-laws, a material change shall be considered to be a revision to a design that has revised one or more of the design factors as listed in the municipal code under Chapter 23, Sec 23-120 (d) in a way that makes the application significantly different. Those factors are as follows: Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Façade, Scale, and Massing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: May 28, 2020 Staff recommend approval of the changes to the bylaws. A marked up copy of all of the final changes is attached to this agenda. COMMISSION ACTION: May 28, 2019 Mr. Minyard gave an update to the Commission. He stated that on page 13 in the Staff Update, there were two changes. A new definition of a material change was read into the record and discussed. Mr. Minyard stated that the Commission must accept that the application is significantly different enough to warrant being heard. It was also changed so that a withdrawn application must also wait 12 months unless a material change has been made. That new language was also read into the record. This made the rules the same for the withdrawals and the denied items. Staff recommends the approval of the changes to the By-Laws. Sherri Latimer also stated that there was an addition of the By-Laws will be reviewed every three years. She stated that there were minor editorial differences in her draft and Page 64 of 65 the draft in front of the Commission. Mr. Minyard asked the attorney if it was proper to vote on the item if the concept was the same and work out the editorial differences later and sign later. Ms. Latimer said that she thought they could approve in concept and vote today. Chair Jeremiah Russell asked if there were any comments. Vice Chair Ted Holder commented about an apparent duplication of some text and if there were any changes. The changes were to allow a request for deferral without the five -day prior notice. A clean copy and a marked-up copy were sent to each. A motion was made to approve the bylaws as submitted by Staff. Commissioner Robert Hodge made the motion and Vice Chair Ted Holder seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes. Signatures will be gained when all text is rectified. Mr. Minyard stated that he thought we would lose Commissioner Frederick soon for a previously scheduled event. COMMISSION ACTION: July 23, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that with the changes made to the By-Laws of adding commas, and grammatical changes, it was though best if an additional vote was taken on the By-Laws. A motion was made to adopt the last version that was distributed to the Commission by Vice Chair Ted Holder and seconded by Christie Aleman. The motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent (Jones). Page 65 of 65 Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff had none to report to the Commission Certificates of Compliance None to report since the last meeting. Pre - application review discussion: This discussion will be deferred to the next meeting. Guidelines Revision There was nothing to report on the Guidelines Revisions. Citizen Communication None Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:36 P.M. Attest: Chair Date 111� zej_ Secretary/Staff Date