Loading...
HDC_11 05 2020Page 1 of 52 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, November 5, 2020, 5:00 p.m. Grant Still Ballroom, Robinson Center Roll Call Quorum was present being five (5) in number. Members Present: Chair Jeremiah Russell Vice Chair Ted Holder Amber Jones Lindsey Boerner Christine Aleman Members Absent: Lauren Frederick Robert Hodge City Attorney: Sherri Latimer Staff Present: Brian Minyard Walter Malone Gilbert ‘Jamie” Collins Citizens Present: Stephan McAteer Ron Ross Lindsey Boerner Doug Melkovitz Josh Moore Adam Melton Rachael Herzog Carolyn Newbern Frances McSwain Tina Medlock Christine Base Jason Darts Joe Joyner William Page Wilson Approval of Minutes Commissioner Christine Aleman made a motion to approve both the May 28, 2020 and the July 23, 2020 minutes as submitted. Commissioner Amber Jones seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Holder, Frederick and Hodge). 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 52 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 1. Location of the Memorial to Company A, Capitol Guards DATE: November 5, 2020. APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program ADDRESS: 503 E 9th Street FILE NUMBER: NR2020-006 REQUEST: De-listing of the Memorial to Company A, Capitol Guards to the National Register of Historic Places PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 503 E 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “That part NW lying E of Quapaw Line W of McAlmont Street & North of E 13th Street in Township 1N, Range 12 W Sections 2 and 11, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Page 3 of 52 PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the De-listing of the Memorial to Company A, Capitol Guards to the National Register. The statue portion of the Memorial to Company A, Capitol Guards was removed in June 2020 leaving only the base in place. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends De-listing to the National Register of Historic Places. COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Chair Jeremiah Russell had a comment on the relocation of other monuments around the country. Commissioner Amber Jones stated that its former location was probably the best place for it. Mr. Minyard stated that the issue was the delisting from the National Register of Historic Places and that any questions regarding its location should be referred to the Mayor’s office and to Stacy Hurst at the AHPP. There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. A motion was made to delist the monument by Chair Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Christine Aleman. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Holder, Frederick and Hodge). Page 4 of 52 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 2. Location of Oak Forrest United Methodist Church DATE: November 5, 2020 APPLICANT: Mason Ellis ADDRESS: 2415 S Fair Park Boulevard FILE NUMBER: NR2020-007 REQUEST: Nomination of the Oak Forest United Methodist Church to the National Register of Historic Places PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 2415 S Fair Park Boulevard. The property’s legal description is “Lots 4 thru 10 Block 50, Cherry and Cox Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Page 5 of 52 PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Oak Forest United Methodist Church to the National Register. According to the Nomination, “The Oak Forest United Methodist Church was completed in 1951 and still operates as a church to this day. The church was designed by local architect John Parks Almand and is a significant example of the Late Gothic Revival style. The original Church and the later Education Wing, also designed by John Parks Almand and completed in 1961, are located along Fair Park Boulevard in the Oak Forest Neighborhood of Little Rock. Its prominent location atop a hill along Fair Park Boulevard and its striking native stone veneer has given it the nickname by some locals as the “Stone Church”. It continues to state “Overall, the Oak Forest United Methodist Church has excellent integrity from the time of its construction. The largest change to the building has been the construction of the classroom addition in the early 1960s, but it was also designed by Almand and blends in with the original church building. The interior of the building retains its original layout as well as many of the original finishes and design. The area around the church also still reflects the residential character that was present when the Oak Forest United Methodist Church was built.” 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 C which 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. COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. Vice Chair Ted Holder arrived at the meeting during this item. A motion was made to recommend approval by Commissioner Christine Aleman and was seconded by Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Page 6 of 52 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 3. Location of the Newbill Porter House DATE: November 5, 2020 APPLICANT: J Mason Toms, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program ADDRESS: 3900 N Lookout Street FILE NUMBER: NR2020-008 REQUEST: Nomination of the Newbill Porter House to the National Register of Historic Places PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 3900 N Lookout Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 7-9 Block 3 Doyle’s Place Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." Page 7 of 52 PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination of the Newbill Porter House to the National Register. The nomination states: “Located at 3900 Lookout Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, the Newbill-Porter House is a single-story, frame dwelling that is clad in cypress board-and-batten siding and thin Roman Brick. The structure is located on the southeastern edge of the Allsopp North Park within the Hillcrest area of the city. The area is relatively hilly and is covered in a variety of mature trees. The house sits on a steeply sloping site and has extensive landscaping with undulating brick retaining walls and flagstone staircases and patios. The house was designed by architect Noland Blass, Jr., in 1952 and was completed in 1953. The landscaping was designed by landscape architect Wiley T. Jones in 1965. The property has been owned by only three families over the years and retains a remarkable level of historic integrity.” The nomination continues: “Completed in 1953, the Newbill-Porter House is a significant and notable example of the early work of architect Noland Blass, Jr., in the Hillcrest area of Little Rock, Arkansas. The design was heavily influenced by the work and writings of architect Frank Lloyd Wright, specifically in his 1908 article in The Architectural Record entitled “In the Cause of Architecture.” This article outlined the general traits that an “organic” architecture should exhibit. Many of the traits and elements mentioned in the article appear in the design of the Newbill-Porter House. Additionally, the property is also an example of the work of notable landscape architect Wiley T. Jones in the area. The numerous retaining walls, water features, and landscape elements found in Jones’s design helped to further enhance the “organic” architectural quality of the property. As such, the Newbill-Porter House is being nominated to the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion C with local significance as an outstanding example of post- World War II, Frank Lloyd Wright inspired American Modernism in the Hillcrest area of the city of Little Rock, Arkansas.” 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 C which 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. COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Chair Jeremiah Russell asked if there was any mention of the intent of the owners. Mr. Minyard said that he did not remember one, but that it might be in the nomination. There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. A motion was made to recommend approval by Commissioner Christine Aleman and was seconded by Vice Chair Ted Holder. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Page 8 of 52 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. Location of Project DATE: November 5, 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. Page 9 of 52 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. Page 10 of 52 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 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 11 of 52 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 12 of 52 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 t han 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 13 of 52 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 14 of 52 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. Page 15 of 52 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 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. Slate roof shingles for the December 2019 hearing. Metal Railings on steps and porches Proposed Cornice for the December 2019 hearing. Proposed Cornice mockup for the December 2019 hearing. Page 16 of 52 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 17 of 52 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 18 of 52 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 19 of 52 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 20 of 52 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 21 of 52 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 22 of 52 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 23 of 52 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 24 of 52 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 25 of 52 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 26 of 52 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 27 of 52 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 28 of 52 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 29 of 52 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 r oof 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, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. He continued that the makeup of the commission would not change for th e foreseeable future and as discussed in the agenda meeting, the request from the commission would be to hear it as it stands instead of a constant cycle of deferrals. 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. It was confirmed that it has not been changed. 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 it would be heard tonight. Sherri Latimer stated that the motion was made but failed for a lack of a second. Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked why he wanted to deny the bylaw request. Chair Russell stated that next month, the makeup 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 because of the pandemic. 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. Page 30 of 52 A motion was made to defer the item by the Commission the next scheduled meeting and 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. STAFF UPDATE: November 5, 2020 Staff received an email from the applicant Tim Heiple on October 20, 2020 asking for the item to be withdrawn. Staff supports this request for withdrawal. COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission indicating that an email was received by him on October 20, 2020 to ask to withdraw the item. There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. A motion was made to approve the request for withdrawal by Vice Chair Ted Holder and was seconded by Chair Jeremiah Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Mr. Minyard stated for the record that a total of 375 gross comments were received on this item with 312 being unique people and organizations. 2 were in support, 2 were neutral and the rest were in opposition. Page 31 of 22 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: November 5, 2020 APPLICANT: Josh Moore ADDRESS: 901 Cumberland St FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-018 COA REQUEST: Fence with gate PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 901 Cumberland. The property’s legal description is “The West 93.35’ of lot 1 and the North 25’ of the West 93.35’ of Lot 2 of Block 44, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house was built in 2016 and is con- sidered a "Non-Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is for the installation of a Fence with gate on the east side of the house. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On April 11, 2016, a COA was approved and issued to Troy Deal for a new house to be built on the site with some fencing to the south of the house. PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This application is to enclose the eastern side yard with a six foot privacy fence that matches the horizontal slat fence that was approved and built with the construction of the house. Part of the application would be to install a gate facing 9th Street. The guidelines state on page 60 that side yard fences 6 feet tall should start halfway back from the front and the rear of the house. The application shows approximately 3.5 feet back from the front corner of the house. To start the fence half way back, approximately 25 feet, may not Location of Project Page 32 of 52 enclose the ac units and the electrical panels. To start the taller privacy fence at 10 feet off the front corner should provide coverage of the utilities, provide storage for the trash cans, and provide area for the gate to swing inside the yard if desired. In the photo below titled “Existing southeast corner…” in the lower right photo, the horizontal slat fence would be built 5 feet closer to the viewer in the alley. As shown on page 58 of the Guidelines, this fence will not block the front yard of the house to the east at 307 E 9th Street. Markup of fence location on east side of house. Contributing and Non-contributing map Existing north and east facades Existing southeast corner in background with existing fences NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment from the MacArthur Park neighborhood Association in support of the application. Page 33 of 52 Plan for fences, new fence shown in red on right side of drawing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. 2. Start fence with gate 10’-0” to the south of the north wall of the house or to enclose hvac units and electric meter, whichever is farther from 9th Street. COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Chair Jeremiah Russell, made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. The applicant verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the hearings tonight. Page 34 of 52 Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission including the recommendation that the fence start at 10’ back from the front wall on 9th Street. Chair Russell asked the applicant if they wished to change their application to have the fence start at 10’ back. They said yes. There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. A motion was made to approve the item as amended by Vice Chair Ted Holder and was seconded by Commissioner Christine Aleman. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Page 35 of 52 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. Two. DATE: November 5, 2020 APPLICANT: Karen Ford, Little Rock Historic Properties ADDRESS: 904 S Scott St FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-019 COA REQUEST: Removal of Wall and construction of fence, dumpster enclosure, and parking lot with gate PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 904 S Scott St. The property’s legal description is summarized as “The South 37 feet of the east 110 feet of Lot 11 and the west 40 feet of lot 11 and 12, Block 10, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This single family house, which was converted to multifamily later, was built in 1871. The 2006 survey form states: “This two story Italianate house has wide cornice and paired brackets supporting overhang. Windows and doors are hooded at front, have vertical mullions and entry door is typical Italianate. Built by prominent businessman. House moved from original location at SW corner of 9th and Scott.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. This application is to remove the concrete wall that is on the south property line, to construct a gated asphalt parking lot, and to install a dumpster enclosure. The applicant will need to get franchise permit for placing landscaping and irrigation in the right of way. Contact Bennie Nicole, 501-371-4818. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On September 12, 2018, a COC was issued to Little Rock Historic Properties to reroof the structure. Location of Project Page 36 of 52 On January 9, 2017, a COA was approved and issued to Little Rock Historic Properties for the installation of fences. On January 9, 2017, a COA was approved and issued to Little Rock Historic Properties for the demolition of part of the concrete wall. On January 9, 2017, a COA was approved and issued to Little Rock Historic Properties for the reconstruction of the front porch. On August 22, 2016, a COC was issued to Little Rock Historic Properties to reroof the structure. On April 14, 2015, a COC was issued Little Rock Historic Properties for rehabilitation due to fire damage. Other actions were found but are older and no longer relevant. Existing view looking south from 9th Street. Existing south elevation looking northwest. 1939 Sanborn Map (current building is labeled Clinic) The building labeled A is the concrete garage for 4 cars. Contributing and Non-contributing map Page 37 of 52 PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: Three Certificate of Appropriateness were approved on January 9, 2017 for this property, Restoration of porch, Removal of wall, and Fences. Some of these items are shown on the graphic later in this report. The approved COAs of January 9, 2017 contained the following: · Install 6’ tall privacy fence on north and south side of house returning to house at front of house (not porch, but the front body of the house) as shown. · Demolish part of the concrete wall that is on the same lot as the house at 904 S Scott which is basically the eastern half of the concrete structure. This application is seeking approval for the following at 904 S Scott: · Removal of the concrete wall structure for that area not already approved. · Continue 6’ privacy fence along south, east, and west side of parking lot. · Construct parking lot with 8 spaces. · Install sliding vehicular gate 20’ off north property line. · Install shrubbery and trees (not in the review of this commission). · Construct dumpster enclosure two foot taller than dumpster. · This application does not include the corner lot at 9th and Scott. The concrete wall was originally part of a four stall garage made of poured concrete walls with a roof. This application is for removal of the part of the wall not already approved. That wall is requested to be removed in order to facilitate utilities being installed to the building. A six f oot tall wood fence would replace the wall in that location on the south and west sides. It is a 6’ tall dog eared fence in yellow pine. The parking lot is proposed to be asphalt with 8 spaces and precast concrete wheel stops. The fence on the north (9th Street) side of the parking lot is to be an ornamental metal fence with matching gate. This will be a Montage Fence 72” with pickets and triad style finials. The gate will be a 6’ tall key pad operated metal fence rolling east and west. The rolling gate will be located 20’ off the property line so that cars may pull in and not block traffic on 9 th Street while entering their code. This is similar to the fence installed one block east at the Clayton Apartments. A 6’ tall wooded privacy fence will also being installed on the east and west sides of the parking lot to enclose the entity of the parking behind the fence. Fences were already approved to be installed along the north and south facades of the house on the property line. The dumpster enclosure will be 2’ taller than the dumpster itself per ordinance. The dumpster will be at the south property line farthest away from 9th Street. The dumpster enclosure will be of yellow pine pickets to match the other wood fencing. When analyzing the application against the guidelines, the following applies. The removal of the rest of the concrete structure is necessary for utilization of the building. The privacy fence at 6’ is in an area that would be the rear yard of 904 S Scott. The wood privacy fence stops 20’ short of 9th Street which does not block the building to the west. The metal fence allows for some visibility into the parking lot. The Guidelines sate on page 61: “Parking areas should be surfaced with gravel or concrete, not asphalt, aggregate or brick.” This asphalt parking lot is not in compliance Page 38 of 52 with the guidelines. Otherwise the application is in compliance. A concrete parking lot would meet the desires of the applicant with having a hard paved surface and meet the guidelines. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment from the MacArthur Park neighborhood Association in support of the application. Site Plan for parking lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 3. Obtaining a building permit. 4. Change asphalt parking lot to concrete. Page 39 of 52 COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Commissioner Christine Aleman stated that she was in the area of influence and would need to recuse from this item. Chair Jeremiah Russell, made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a ma jority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. The applicant verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the hearing tonight. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission including the recommendation that the parking lot surface be concrete instead of asphalt. Chair Russell asked the applicant if they wished to change their application to concrete. They said yes. There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. A motion was made to approve the item as amended by Vice Chair Ted Holder and was seconded by Commissioner Christine Aleman. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge) and 1 recusal (Aleman). Page 40 of 52 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. Three. DATE: November 5, 2020 APPLICANT: Doug Melkovitz ADDRESS: 923 McMath FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-020 COA REQUEST: Remove artificial siding, restore original lap siding, install guttering, remove deck at front of house, remove metal bars on windows, restore cutaway brackets at north corner, replace exterior doors, restore original windows, and expand parking lot at the street corner. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 923 McMath Ave. The property’s legal description is “Lot 11, Block 4, Masonic Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." This building, originally a single family house, was built ca 1929. 923 McMath is a “simple Queen Anne structure with steeply hipped roofs and cutaway corners at front façade. The original siding and porch detailing has been replaced.” This is considered a contributing structure to the district. This application is to remove artificial siding, restore original lap siding, install guttering, remove deck at front of house, remove metal bars on windows, restore cutaway brackets at north corner, replace exterior doors, restore original windows, and expand parking lot at the street corner. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On October 10, 2014, a COA was approved and issued to Doug Melkovitz to install fencing at 923 McMath and make other changes to 923 ½ McMath and to the two properties on 10th Street. On April 22, 2013, a COC was issued for roof repairs at 718 E 10th. Location of Project Page 41 of 52 Existing front west elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Certificate of Appropriateness that was approved on October 10, 2014, covered the same site but approved different items. It is important to list those here to understand the renovations to both structures. The approved COA of October 10, 2014 contained the following: · Install Fencing at all locations; Install 36” tall picket fence in front of 923 McMath along McMath Street and on south side of that lot approximately one-half way back on house. Install 36” tall black aluminum fence along the balance of McMath Street and the entirety of 10th Street. No pedestrian or vehicular gates will be installed. Install 6’ privacy fence along the frontage road and the north property line to tie into existing fence at Pizza Hut property. Also install 6’ privacy fence on south side of 923 McMath to screen rear yard from the street. · Replace aluminum single pane windows at 923 1/2 McMath with “Aluminum Double Pane Double Strength Replacement Single Hung Window”. · Replace siding at 923 1/2 McMath with Hardie Plank fiber cement siding to match existing. · No exterior changes will be made to the Contributing structure at 923 McMath. This application is seeking approval for the following on 923 McMath: · Remove artificial siding and restore original lap siding. · Install gutters. · Remove deck at front of house. · Remove metal bars on windows. · Restore cutaway brackets at northwest corner. · Replace exterior doors. · Restore original windows. · Expand the parking lot at the street corner. Remove artificial siding and restore original lap siding: The applicant has provided a photo of the house prior to the installation of the aluminum siding. The original siding appears to be weatherboard with decorative diamond shingles in the gable. The original siding will be restored/replicated where necessary with siding to match the original and painted. Restoration of the original siding is appropriate per the Guidelines. Page 42 of 52 Install gutters: The proposal is to add 6”, K-style aluminum guttering at the north and south edges of the roof with downspouts as indicated. There will be a total of six downspouts; two at the rear corners of the house, two near the middle of the north side and two near the middle of the south side. Downspouts will be 2” x 3”. All materials will be in black. The guidelines state that the downspouts should be located away from significant architectural features. There are no downspouts planned on the front corners of the house. Remove deck at front of house: The deck at the front of the house is not a contributing element to the house. Under the front deck, there is a set of steps that will also be removed. The Guidelines state that decks should be located at the rear of houses. Removing the deck and the additional steps are appropriate. Remove metal bars on windows: Metal bars on the windows are also not an original feature. The guidelines state that bars can be painted to match the window and trim paint colors. Removing them is appropriate. Undated photo of similar house at 1007 McMath Typical K-style gutters Page 43 of 52 Restore cutaway brackets at north corner: The applicant has provided a photo of the house with the decorative brackets. Recreating the decorative barracks is an appropriate treatment. See photo on preceding page. Replace exterior doors: The setup of the house as a duplex means that the entry doors enter into windowless spaces. The applicant desired to have doors with windows to provide additional lighting into the area. The doors would be paint grade poplar wood. Glass would be clear in both doors. The front door will be a Simpson Door # 7117 - 36”x80” in paint grade Poplar featuring a large glass opening in the upper half of the door. This style door could be appropriate to this era house. The rear door is a Simpson Door #: 37134 - 36” x 80” in paint grade Poplar with a modified six panel with the upper panels in windows. This door will not be visible from the street. Restore original windows: This would normally be covered under a maintenance approval. Removing, stripping, painting, re-glazing, and reinstalling the original windows would be an appropriate treatment. Expand the parking lot at the northwest corner: The current parking lot features approximately four parking stalls to the east of the aisle. The proposal is to add approximately four more spaces to the west of the aisle so that it would be double loaded. The current parking lot is concrete, it was not specified what material the new parking lot would be. The Guidelines state that parking lots should be to the side or behind the principal structure and never between a structure and the street. One could argue that the parking lot is to the side of both structures, but the location of the parking lot on the corner of the block is unfortunate. The plans are to install the fence that was approved earlier and to plant shrubbery between McMath Street and the cars to screen the parking from the street. Front – West facing door Rear – East facing door View from McMath and 10th Street Plan by applicant. Page 44 of 52 Lighting: No additional exterior lighting will be added. Mechanical Systems: All exterior air conditioning/heating system units will be placed on the north side of the building. The guidelines state they should not be visible from the street. Satellite Dishes: The current satellite dish on the North side of the roof is non-operational and will be removed. No additional ones are planned. Roof: All layers of Roofing will be removed and replaced with new 20 yr. composite shingles and rolled roofing over shed roof sections of front and back porches. Decking will be replaced as necessary. This is normally handled under a maintenance approval. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment from the MacArthur Park neighborhood Association in support of the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 5. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Chair Jeremiah Russell, made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. The applicant verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the hearings tonight. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission There was a discussion on the size of the front porch. Mr. Doug Melkovitz clarified that the historic phot was of 1007 McMath, a similar home in style to 923 McMath. The porch will remain the same depth as it is currently. There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. A motion was made to approve the item as presented by Commissioner Christine Aleman and was seconded by Vice Chair Ted Holder. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Page 45 of 52 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. Four. DATE: November 5, 2020 APPLICANT: Ron Ross, Dept. of Parks and Recreation ADDRESS: 503 E 9th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-021 COA REQUEST: New universal accessible playground with sidewalks PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 503 East 9th Street. The property’s legal description is “That part NW lying E of Quapaw Line W of McAlmont Street & North of E 13th Street in Township 1N, Range 12 W Sections 2 and 11, Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The Arsenal Building was built in the 1840’s and is a national landmark, the highest recognition of a historic building. The structure is a contributing structure in the district. This application is for a new universal accessible playground with sidewalks. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On January 10, 2018, a COA was approved for storm windows on the Arsenal Building. On March 10, 2014, a COA was approved for new fencing at the playground. On April 5, 2013, a COA was approved for a sign at the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History. On December 10, 2012, an application for a fence was reviewed by the HDC as part of another application but was withdrawn at that hearing. On December 10, 2012, a COA was approved for multiple signs to be installed in the park. Location of Project Page 46 of 52 On January 31, 2011, A COA was approved for two new signs for the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History and for a directional sign for the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History and the Arkansas Korean War Veterans Memorial. Location looking west from east parking lot Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: This playground is a component playset with colorful elements and will be located southeast of the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History. The location between the two existing parking lots will provide ample parking. The playground is designed for children 5-12 years old. Playground equipment includes slides, climbing boards, overhead ladders, gliders, swings, zip tracks, as well as sensory equipment associated with touch, sound, and visual experiences. Shade structures cover much of the play equipment and seating areas. Surrounding the playground, low shrubs, boulders, fences, and benches will be in place to control access. Signage will be included. The existing playground will be removed when the new playground is installed. The site will be leveled and seeded with grass to provide a free from play area. Sidewalks from the parking areas to the new playground area will be 8 feet wide. Additional walks will be added to the edges of the parking lots to connect to the playground. One sidewalk from the eastern parking lot will be removed. Two 12’ square cantilever umbrellas shade bench areas that look onto the playground. Other benches surround the play area without umbrellas. Fencing around parts of the playground will match the fence that was installed recently at the corner of 9th and McMath near the existing playground. The proposed fence is 4’ tall as stated on the drawings. The fence will have 3” square intermediate posts between the sections. For a fence on a slope without a masonry base, it is important for the fence to follow the slope without the bottom of the fence being buried in the soil or providing too much of a gap between the bottom of the fence and the ground beneath. For that reason, it would be desired to have the maximum height of any portion of the fence to be 54” above the existing grade. Page 47 of 52 Below are signs for the playground that are typical of the new signage being installed in all of the parks in the city. The locations for the signs are noted on the plan shown at the end of this report. The guidelines do not comment on the installation of playgrounds. When the land was deeded to the City from the Federal Government, it was to be used in perpetuity as a city park. Parks inevitably have playgrounds as part of the programming of the spaces. The Arsenal Building, that houses the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History, is a on the National Register of Historic Places as a National Landmark. Moving the playground from the front of the park along 9th Street to the side will help preserve the view shed to the front of the Arsenal building. Having the playground more accessible to parking, more accessible to kids of varying abilities, and less in the view shed of the Arsenal Building is a positive attribute. A contemporary playground will never “match” the Arsenal Building, but in its proposed location, Staff believes that it can blend in with the neighborhood. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were six letters of support from area neighborhood associations and entities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 6. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Chair Jeremiah Russell, made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. The applicant verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the hearing tonight. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission Playground rules sign Playground dedication sign Page 48 of 52 There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. A motion was made to approve the item as presented by Commissioner Amber Jones and was seconded by Commissioner Christine Aleman. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Page 49 of 52 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. Five. DATE: November 5, 2020 APPLICANT: Joe Joyner ADDRESS: 316 E 11th Street FILE NUMBER: HDC2020-027 COA REQUEST: Signage and Terra Cotta Coping PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 316 E 11th Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 7, Block 45, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The building at 316 East 11th Street is a ca. 1900-1910 Garage building and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District in the latest survey. (A previous staff report listed the use of the building as originally built as a stable for the grocery store at 1020 Rock.) This application is for Signage and Terra Cotta Clay Coping. This will replace the existing sign and replace the aluminum coping on the parapet wall with clay tile. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On September 23, 2014, a COA was approved and issued to Joe Joyner for a sign on the front of the building. On April 11, 2011, a COA was approved and issued to Joe Joyner for repointing of the brick and front door. Location of Project Page 50 of 52 Existing south facade with old sign Contributing and Non-contributing map PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The current signage on the building is a wall mounted sign of individual metal letters that have been mounted into the wall. It is 8’x2’ long. The proposed sign is an 18lb High Density Urethane product that will be milled to appear like a wood sign. The proposed size is 8’ long by 28 ¼” tall, four inches taller than the existing sign. The sign is to be placed above the carriage doors and below the protruding course of brick that forms the base of the cornice in the same place as the existing sign. The text “Little Rock Violin Shop” and the bow underneath remain constant in both sign designs. The proposed sign will look larger because of its solid background. The sign occupies approximately 6% of the facade area. The guidelines state that when attached to buildings, signs should not cover or obscure architectural features. Small signs may be flush mounted on a building wall. A sign on masonry wall should be mounted in the mortar, not the masonry. This sign complies with these statements. Care should be taken when removing the old sign to repoint the mortar to fill any holes that are created by removing the old sign hardware. The second part of the application is to add clay tiles to Proposed sign Page 51 of 52 the top of the parapet. Currently, there is an aluminum white coping cap that is not historic. The request is to remove the aluminum coping and replace with clay copings. Two other commercial buildings of this era in the district have the clay caps: Baker Liquor (Stones Throw Brewery) at 400 E 9th and the Kindervater Building at 407 E 9th. Staff knows of no evidence that would state what type of coping was on the building originally. The aluminum coping is definitely not historic. The clay coping proposed fits the time frame of the building. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one comment from the MacArthur Park neighborhood Association in support of the application. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 7. Obtaining a building permit. 8. Repair mortar damage that occurred after removing the old sign with period mortar type and joint style. COMMISSION ACTION: November 5, 2020 Commissioner Christine Aleman stated that she was in the area of influence and would need to recuse from this item. Chair Jeremiah Russell, made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present. The applicant verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the hearing tonight. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. Chair Russell congratulated the applicant on doing things the right way in respect to the proposed changes to the building. There were no members of the public that chose to speak on this item. A motion was made to approve the item as amended by Vice Chair Ted Holder and was seconded by Commissioner Christine Aleman. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge) and 1 recusal (Aleman). Proposed clay coping Page 52 of 52 Other Matters Enforcement issues Staff reported 900 Rock Street for changes to the siding and adding columns to the house. Mr. Minyard expects an application to be filed shortly. Certificates of Compliance A spreadsheet was distributed to the Commission earlier. These items were approved on a Staff level. 5/26/2020 308 E Daisy Bates roofing and gutters 7/13/2020 1323 Cumberland siding and foundation 8/19/2020 521 Rock new HVAC 8/31/2020 815 Sherman parapet rehab 9/4/2020 501 E 7th new HVAC 9/10/2020 618 Rock fence repair 9/30/2020 1302 Cumberland wind damage 10/14/2020 1323 Cumberland front door 10/14/2020 1101 Cumberland roofing and HVAC 10/16/2020 316 E 11th roofing and skylight 10/28/2020 1101 Cumberland awnings 10/22/2020 1100 Rock roofing 2021 Calendar A calendar of meeting times and deadlines was submitted by Staff. A motion was made by Commissioner Amber Jones to accept and was seconded by Vice Chair Ted Holder. The calendar was accepted with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). 2021 Slate of officers A brief discussion was held concerning the election of the officers, Chair and vice Chair. A motion was made by Chair Jeremiah Russell and seconded by Vice Chair Ted Holder to keep the same officers for the upcoming year. The slate was accepted with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge). Citizen Communication There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication. Adjournment There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:26 p.m. Attest: Chair Date Secretary/Staff Date