Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC_05 11 20091 LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION MINUTES Monday, May 11, 2009, 5:00 p.m. Sister Cities’ Conference Room, City Hall I.Roll Call Quorum was present being four (4) in number. Members Present: Marshall Peters Julie Wiedower Susan Bell Randy Ripley Members Absent: Bob Wood City Attorney: Debra Weldon Staff Present:Brian Minyard Citizens Present: Carrie Stewart Kenji Yoshigoe Rick Redden Liz Hamilton Robert Traylor Page Wilson Sharon Priest David Traylor Jeff Horton David Anderson George Wittenberg Boyd Maher, AHPP II.Approval of Minutes a.April 13, 2009 A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of April 13, 2009. Commissioner Susan Bell seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent. DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 2 STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. One. DATE: May 11, 2009 APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings ADDRESS: Northwest Corner of 15th and Rock Street COA REQUEST: Single Story house on 15th Street PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 1422 South Rock Street. The property’s legal description is Lot 7 of Block 49 of the Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas. This is a vacant lot. This application is for a request to amend the existing COA for the new infill construction of one single-story detached home and one two-story detached home with development of lots 8 and 9 to be reviewed at a later time. The single-story home is located on the west portion of the lot at the alley and the two-story home is on the eastern portion of the lot at the street corner. This application will review the single-story home first and then the two-story home. Since the 2006 review of this site, there has been construction activity in the neighborhood. In June 2006, permits were issued for two duplex structures at 1517 and 1521 Cumberland Street. In July 2006, a permit was issued for a single-family residence at 1520 Rock Street. In September 2006, a permit was issued for a single- family residence at 1518 Rock Street. In February 2007, three permits were issued for single-family homes at 301, 305, and 309 East 15th Street. This application will be required to go to the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors for a Revocation of a PD-R for the three lots with a five-plex and creation of a DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 Location of Project 3 one lot PD-R for platting of the lots into two lots, both 50’ x 70’. This platting will divide the lot into two and prescribe setbacks on the lots. The PD-R will not review exterior finishes, scale, mass, roof pitch, etc. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On November 13, 2006, a COA was approved for Page Wilson of Paul Page Dwellings for a five-plex multifamily unit on lots 7, 8, and 9 of this block. That project also included a zoning change to Planned Development - Residential (PD-R) that was approved by the Board of Directors on November 28, 2006. On January 7, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Raymond Rogers for demolition of a four-plex structure that was severely damaged by the 1999 tornado. Several other structures in the 1300-1500 blocks of Rock Street were demolished around that time because of severe damage by the 1999 tornado. PROPOSAL: The applicant has proposed building two houses on the southernmost lot and split the lot into two building lots. These three lots ca. 1900 had a brick Craftsman two-story four-plex at 1422 and the Warner House at 1414 Rock Street that was a Queen Anne two-story house with wood siding. There was a building in the rear of the lots that is not pictured in the 1978 survey. The use is unknown but it appears that it was garages. The building straddled the property lines. The site of the application is shown in the center of the graphics below. The south side of this block of 15th Street had five houses that faced the street in the 1978 survey, all on the south side of the street. All five have been removed but the western three have been replaced with different single-family structures. To the east on Building footprints from 1978 Survey Current building footprints from GIS 4 15th, more houses face the street instead of the north-south streets. To have houses that face 15th is appropriate for the neighborhood. Alternatively, if you look at the houses and carriage houses in the neighborhood, it is typical to have the main house in a rectangular solid facing the named streets (Rock, Cumberland, etc) with a square carriage house of one or two stories in the back. See the above graphic “Current building footprints from GIS” that illustrates the point. In this proposal, the square structure is on the street corner while the rectangular structure is at the back of the lot. This is opposite of the traditional pattern. Site plan for the two houses Elevations of both of the houses 5 SINGLE STORY HOME: PROPOSAL: The first portion of this application is for a single-story house to be built on the western portion of the lot at the northwest corner of 15th and Rock Street. The house will face 15th Street and will be a two-bedroom two-bath structure without covered parking. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 63: “New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) “New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. “1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.” The footprint of approximately 48 x 20 feet is similar to other primary structures in the area. There are two bays on the north side of the building. “2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” The front of the house will face 15th Street. The house is proposed to sit 15’ off the alley way as required by code. The front yard setback will be 15’ also, the minimum required by code. The height of the proposed building is approximately 25 feet, which is 6 less than the buildings to the immediate west and southwest. Setbacks vary in the district, but overall, the scale and the setbacks of the building are compatible with the other smaller residences in the district. “3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)” The house, as described by the applicant, is a “Neotrot” (a new rendition of a dog trot.) The house is basically a rectangular solid parallel to the street with two bay extensions to the rear of the structure. The bedrooms are to each end of the structure with the public areas to the center. The center bay of the structure will be slightly recessed. The recessed area is not a porch. The stoop for the structure is shown approximately four feet wide. Roof: The 8/12-pitched roof is compatible with the surrounding structures. The extension of the roof plane in the rear over the utility room and back porch bays is not typical of homes in the area. These bays will be on the interior of the lot and would normally be marginally visible from the street if the lots to the north were developed. Windows: The outer windows shown on the south elevation are pairs of windows are appropriate for the district. The center windows facing 15th Street are not typical for this area. The window(s) have nine panes and are floor to ceiling windows. Historic homes 15th Street Façade (south) East Facade North (rear) Facade West Facade 7 in the area and new homes that do not disrupt the pattern of the neighborhood have more than one window per side of the structure. The side elevations of the house (east and west) have windows in the bathrooms only. This broad expanse of siding without windows is not typical for the area. The west elevation will be quite visible from 15th Street via the alley. Foundation: The new building will have a raised foundation; it will be 18” above grade at the highest corner of the lot. This will result in an 18-24” height at the front door or approximately three steps. The floor to ceiling height and the foundation level appears to be compatible with the district. “4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)” Siding: The horizontal siding of cypress shiplap siding will have a 6 1/4” reveal. There will be trim around the around the windows, doors, eaves, and corner boards which is typical. The cypress siding will not be stained, it will be allowed to weather to a natural grey color. Roof: The roof is proposed to be “galvalume.” This is a corrugated ribbed metal roof with zinc coating similar to the old style tin roofs. While the roofing material may have been used on secondary structures in the area, it is not compatible with the district for a primary structure. Photo of Galvalume roof. 8 Windows: The windows in the house will be either Kolbe or Windsor windows, a wood window with a cladding of either vinyl or metal. The color of the cladding and the material has not been specified. Foundation: The materials of the foundation or underpinning have not been submitted to the Staff. Landscape: The sidewalk shown is on the street side of the property line, at the location typical for this neighborhood. This is shown on the “Site Plan” graphic on page three. Street trees are shown as well as other trees and shrubs on the property. The parking areas will be to the rear and side of the house accessed off the alley. The parking pad will be gravel with a wood boarder. There will be no covered parking, only the pad. The fencing will be approximately four feet high with some additional height to accommodate the slope of the ground. The fence is to be located originally on the property line only between the two lots. TWO STORY HOME: PROPOSAL: The second portion of this application is for a two-story house to be built on the eastern portion of the lot at the northwest corner of 15th and Rock Street. The house will face 15th Street and will be a three-bedroom two and one-half-bath structure without covered parking. WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES: The Guidelines state on page 63: “New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished Elevation of proposed fence Gravel parking pad 9 from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.) “New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape. “1. Building Orientation: The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.” The footprint of approximately 38 x 38 feet is similar to other primary structures in the area. The house features an inset porch on the southeast corner. Historically, houses faced the 1400 block of Rock Street, not the side streets. The lots were originally platted so that the front of the houses would face Rock. With this house being square, it would be possible to turn the house with the front door facing Rock. An alternative would be to not turn the house, but run the sidewalk to Rock Street and have an address off Rock Street. “2. Building Mass and Scale: New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the area. This includes height and width.” The front of the house will face 15th Street. The house is proposed to sit 15’ off both Rock and 15th Street property lines as required by code. The height of the proposed building is approximately 31 feet. With the bulk of the structure and the flat roof, the building’s mass may appear larger than the surrounding structures. 1422 Rock Street from the 1978 survey 10 “3. Building Form Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)” The house, as described by the applicant, is a modern interpretation of a “Four Square.” The house is a square cube with a flat roof with a corner-recessed porch on the corner facing the intersection of the streets with the door facing 15th Street. It features three bedrooms and two baths on the top floor and public living areas with a half bath on the bottom floor. The applicant describes this house as a “modern four-square home.” Roof: The flat roof is not compatible with the surrounding structures. There are structures with flat roofs as indicated by the letter “F” in the graphic below. However, these structures are multi-family structures, offices, or renovated school buildings that are now multifamily. These flat roof structures are not single-family homes. The “M” notation is for the mansard roof of the Villa Marre. 15th Street Façade (south) Rock Street (East) Facade North (rear) Facade West Facade 11 Windows: The windows shown on the elevation of this building are not compatible with the district. The 15th Street (front) façade of this house features a recessed corner porch on the southeast corner with a two-story window to the left. A horizontal window is located on the second floor above the porch. The Rock Street (east) façade features the other view of the recessed porch, another horizontal window over the porch and vertically ganged windows with accent siding between the two to tie the windows together into one visual unit. The north and west facades feature windows in an “L” formation with horizontal windows on the second floor and vertical windows on the first floor and in the stairway. See graphics of elevations above for window placement, size, and arrangement. Foundation: The new building will have a raised foundation; it will be 18” above grade at the highest corner. This will result in an 18-24” height at the front door or approximately three steps. The floor to ceiling height and the foundation height appears to be compatible with the district. “4. Building Materials Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color. Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding. Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)” Siding: The horizontal ribbed steel siding is described more fully at www.morincorp.com. The single Element Metal Panel Systems will be in Patina Green color, which is mossy green in nature. There will be trim around the around the windows, doors, eaves, and corner boards out of metal which could emulate the trim Locations of flat roof structures 12 boards on wood sided structures. The use of metal for a primary siding material is not compatible with the area. Roof: The roof is proposed to be flat with a white membrane covering. A small parapet wall will prevent view of the roof. The material used may be appropriate for the area for rear porches and the like, but the flat roof is not appropriate. Windows: The windows in the house will be either Kolbe or Windsor windows, a wood window with a cladding of either vinyl or metal. The color of the cladding and the material has not been specified. Clad windows in new homes can be appropriate to the area. Foundation: No materials have been submitted to the Staff. Landscape: The sidewalk shown is on the street side of the property line, at the location typical for this neighborhood. This is shown on page 3 in the graphic “Site Plan” Street trees are shown as well as other trees and shrubs on the property. The parking areas will be to the side of the house accessed off 15th Street. The parking pad will be gravel with a wood boarder. There will be no covered parking, only the pad. The fencing will be approximately four feet high with some additional height to accommodate the slope of the ground. The fence is to be located originally on the property line only between the two lots. See earlier graphics for fencing details on page 7. There is a “Garden” shown to the northwest of the structure enclosed by a fence. This fence is not part of the application. It will feature raised garden beds. Summary Analysis of both houses: The Guidelines state on page 63 that: New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. Staff has serious concerns over the design of the two structures proposed. On the one story house, the roofing materials chosen and the windows (placement, quantity, and size) are not compatible with the neighborhood. On the two-story house, the flat roof, the metal siding, and windows (placement, quantity, and size) are not compatible with the district. With modifications, the structures could be such that they “maintain, not Corner Detail of Siding Profile of siding 13 disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood.” As submitted, Staff feels that they do not meet the Guidelines. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one natural comment regarding this application with questions on what the application was concerning. No details of the project other than there were two houses were discussed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial as filed. COMMISSION ACTION: May 11, 2009 Brian Minyard, Staff, noted that all notices to property owners were complete. Mr. Minyard stated that this application was to amend an existing COA. He continued the presentation of the item that covered the portions of the guidelines where the applications met or did not meet the guidelines starting with the one story house and then the two-story house. He read the last paragraph of the Staff report that starts on page 11 with “Staff has serious concerns…” He then addressed the comments from the neighborhood residents to Staff, in support, not in support and neutral. The email that was in support has been passed out to the commissioners. Staff did receive a list of people that contacted him. Those names were placed in the file. There were no questions of Staff by the commissioners. Page Wilson, the applicant, brought samples of the exterior of the buildings. He referred to graphic boards that showed the difference in the footprints of buildings from 1954 to 2009. He stated that he wanted to rehabilitate his part of the neighborhood. He wants to attract residents through design and price. He provided a sheet (Exhibit A) from the MacArthur Park Master Plan that shows the difference in the 1954 and 2008 footprints and density of housing. He provided six letters of support from neighbors that were placed in the file (Exhibit B - G). He briefly spoke of the authors of the letters. He also spoke of supporters that could not be at the meeting. Rick Redden spoke of the difference in price of building hi-rises versus single-family houses and the next area to work in after the River Market. He spoke of existing infrastructure and attracting folks and what kind of folks do you want to attract. He asked what do you build to attract those kinds of people and those buildings may be in opposition to a set of guidelines. He wanted to increase density not through multi family dwellings, but by a lot split. He commented on how to attract those types of people through architecture. The two-story house is 28 foot square and deliberately tried to push envelope to design something new. He spoke of the metal siding of the two-story house. The downtown area is diverse, so architecture should be diverse. Chairman Peters asked if the commissioners had any questions. 14 Commissioner Randy Ripley commented that he appreciated the sustainability and infill issues but that the commission was here for the appropriateness of the structure. He asked Mr. Redden to speak to the appropriateness of the structure. Before Mr. Redden responded, Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the siting of the house with the 15-foot setbacks. A discussion ensued on the setbacks of other houses in the area. As to compatibility with the neighborhood, Commissioner Wiedower brought up the issues of the corner house not facing Rock Street. She brought up the issue of moving or adding a sidewalk on the two-story house. Mr. Wilson spoke of facing the house with solar orientation. She stated that she was not talking about shifting the house, she was asking about moving the sidewalk. Mr. Redden said that it would not hurt to put a walk in that location and was talking about two sidewalks. Mr. Minyard stated that in the Staff report, it was stating to move the sidewalk to Rock Street from 15th Street, not having two sidewalks. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the development on lots 8 and 9 would have to orient to Rock Street. Mr. Wilson spoke of diversity of the area historically. A discussion was held about the orientation of the lots in relation to the lots and when they were platted. Mr. Minyard referred the commissioners to the Staff report graphic on page 2 “Building footprints from the 1978 Survey” and pointed out that the houses historically faced Rock Street on that block. He continued that the zoning in the area, which was created especially for that area, sets that setback at 15 feet and he believes that it is compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Ripley asked about addressing concerns. Mr. Minyard said that it was probably the owners’ choice on what the address was since he was on the corner. He continued that the address and the sidewalk would make more sense to be toward the same street. Mr. Wilson stated that the address or the sidewalk was not the important thing to him, it was the solar orientation. Chairman Peters asked about what year the Google map was. Mr. Wilson answered and then continued on the orientation of the houses. Mr. Minyard referred the Commission to page 2 graphic “Current building footprints from GIS” to show the houses in the neighborhood. Commissioner Wiedower commented on the extraordinary situation with the tornadoes on Rock Street, she has less of a concern, personally, over design than rhythm of the neighborhood. She spoke of the vacant lots in the area and of demolition by neglect of area structures. She is concerned on siting of house and setting the rhythm of the street that was there historically. She does not really have a problem with materials, even though they are not in keeping with the guidelines. She liked the horizontal ridges on the two-story and the details on the trim and around the openings. After looking at our guidelines and others, she looked at the relation of the home to street, which is important. She thinks this is an exceptional situation and would have more concerns if it were placed elsewhere. 15 Chairman Marshall Peters asked if this area was in SOMA. Mr. Wilson said that he was not sure, but he considers his area to be. Mr. Redden stated that it was in the area of the master plan for SOMA. Chairman Peters asked if there were any citizens in opposition to the application. Mr. Minyard stated that citizens in support spoke first. He then asked citizens to speak in favor and to state their name for the record. Carrie Stewart, who lives across the alley from the proposed project, spoke in support of the projects. She moved downtown for parks. She supports developments of this type in the area. The houses will be a welcome addition to the area. Kenji Yoshigoe, spoke in support of the application. He lives at 16th and Rock and moved from West Little Rock after looking for a house for three years. He is attracted to the architecture. He considers his neighborhood to be friendly. Robert Traylor spoke in support of the applications. He owns property at 14th and Rock and lost two houses in the tornado. He strongly supports the project and thinks it will help the area. Boyd Maher deferred his comments for later. Sharon Priest spoke in support of the project. She stated that this is a sharp reminder of what infill needs to be done and supports people living downtown. She spoke of the MacArthur Park Group and the goals of creating development around the park. She continued on the sustainability of the house. It is not quite LEED qualified, but what Mr. Wilson calls “lite green or green lite.” She feels they add to downtown. George Wittenberg spoke in support of the application. He spoke of property he owns at 15th and Louisiana. He supports diversity in architecture that provides richness. He noted the Vision plan for SOMA although SOMA does not have an official boundary. It is generally considered to be I-630, Broadway at Mt Holly Cemetery, Roosevelt, and I- 30. The SOMA plan struggled with the northeast residential corner that was devastated by the tornado. He read from the plan concerning this area. In summary, the SOMA plan acknowledges infill development of different styles and the plan supports continuing this. Boyd Maher, representing AHPP, spoke to the commission. His office has reviewed the proposal. His office does support home ownership, etc, but that is beyond this commissions’ prevue. The standards for a structure being compatible is that is does no harm as listed in the guidelines. He stated that it had been implied that the Guidelines only allow one type of cookie cutter architecture. The Commission has approved infill structures before: the Law School dorms, Fish Factory, Tina Boyd’s houses, Police Substation, all different and diverse, but within the guidelines. They are in scale with 16 the surrounding areas and are compatible, not just of their area, but of the district as a whole. He continued that the area would always bear the scar of the tornado. New construction should reflect new architecture and materials. The Board of Directors and the citizens have stated that this area should be special and be reviewed with scrutiny. The guidelines have served the Commission well to date, and they should continue to do so. He encouraged the commissioners to stick to their guidelines. Chairman Peters asked if anyone else wanted to speak. No one responded. Mr. Minyard stated that Staff did not have anything else to add at that time. Commissioner Wiedower commented about the delisting of National Register structures and the structures lost from the tornado. Mr. Minyard stated that the new survey will notify the Parks Service of the structures that are no longer there and the structures that are contributing or not and what has changed. Mr. Minyard stated that the zoning of R-4A has duplexes by right. The densification of the area has been addressed by the adopted zoning. Commissioner Ripley stated that new development maybe be moving to a different scale and type. He asked if this was the beginning of a different type of architecture in the area. Commissioner Wiedower said that this was a factor and the guidelines are to be used as a recommendation. Chairman Peters asked for a motion. Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve and Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The vote was 2 ayes (Wiedower and Ripley), 2 noes (Peters and Bell), and 1 absent (Wood). The motion failed because of a lack of the majority of the entire commission (three votes). There was a discussion on the fact that an applicant can resubmit for a reconsideration of a COA within twelve months of this hearing if there is material change on the project. Debra Weldon read from the bylaws considering reconsiderations. Chairman Peters clarified that if the application changed, it can be brought back to the commission. The timetable of reconsideration was discussed. Mr. Minyard read from the bylaws concerning reconsiderations. He elaborated that if materials changed, roof pitch changed, etc, then the applicant can come back and ask for a new hearing within the next twelve months. Mr. Wittenberg asked if the commission could rehear it since one of the commissioners was absent. Chairman Peters stated no. He continued that there would have to be significant change for the commission to rehear the application. Mr. Wittenberg asked the commission on what they would like to have changed on the application. Commissioner Bell asked that the fenestration and detailing on the two-story building to be changed. Chairman Peters referenced the guidelines so that the properties should match in mass, scale and design. Commissioner Wiedower said that the guidelines did 17 address that point for the historic size and scale. Chairman Peters restated “Design, scale, form and roof shape.” A discussion was held that the new building should be distinguishable from the historic building while blending with historic fabric. It was stated that the item is appealed to court, it is not appealed to the Board of Directors. Jeff Horton commented that the style should not duplicate, but be distinguishable from the historic buildings. Mr. Wilson spoke that the preservation consultant, Phil Thomason, took photos of the houses south of the application and stated that Mr. Thomason thought those homes were good infill. Mr. Wilson continued that did not talk as much as they probably should on the design process of the two houses in the presentation. He then presented the commission with photos of other four squares. Mr. Wilson continued on the using of natural air circulation. This was his interpretation of four square and dogtrots. He stated he did read the guidelines and duties of the commission. He stated that “if it was strictly an argument against the design, that was subjective and I understand that and guidelines are guidelines… When you get to the whole area, this last 50 feet of MacArthur Park feels that he will not do any harm to the neighborhood or the historic contents of what is across the park…” He continued on the passive solar aspects of the buildings. Chairman Peters stated that he appreciated his comments but the application was denied. He continued that it was not personal, but the design that was presented. It was to be presented as one item and not as two. Mr. Wilson said that he did not want to split them up. He stated to Commissioner Bell that he would not change the drawings if he comes back. She commented that she personally liked the drawings. Sharon Priest asked to address the commission. Chairman Peters said that she could in citizen communication but would have to wait for that item on the agenda. 18 III.Other Matters a Enforcement issues There are no current items on the enforcement spreadsheet. There was one item reported to Staff of an outbuilding between 7th and 8th street. It was determined by Staff the location was such that it was not readily visible from the street, thus not an enforcement item. b Preservation Plan Update Mr. Minyard announced that the next scheduled meeting is on May 27, 2009 with the location and time. The draft is to be delivered to Staff. c Work Plan This item was not discussed at the meeting. Staff is working on items for the next hearing. Mr. Minyard stated that the commission was about two-third of the way through the items. d Dunbar Survey Mr. Minyard stated that the contract is currently being negotiated and gave them an email from Lisa Spigner and John Mott during the agenda meeting. Staff will keep checking on this item. e Citizen Communication Sharon Priest commented on the state of Historic Preservation in Little Rock and that the preservation community often waited too late to do anything. She listed examples of past demolitions and endangered structures. Nothing has been done to stop demolitions and there are too many vacant lots downtown. She continued that we were going to continue to let lots sit vacant and destroy a neighborhood. She added that the commission was saying it was more important to have historic structures that match than to have new houses on vacant lots. She encouraged communication about this topic. She stressed saving neighborhoods, not just buildings or bricks and mortar. She urged taking leadership to get balance between historic and new construction. George Wittenberg said that they are starting a discussion about this issue. Rick Redden stated that this was one of the saddest things that could happen and that a decision was made on abstract guidelines. He commented that the people in the neighborhood supported that application. Page Wilson stated that he went to the AHPP website and gave handouts to the Staff. He spoke of the “scale, style, ornamentation and siding materials and each has been influenced by evolving social, cultural and economic factors in the nation” - a quote from Exhibit H. He continued that four or five months ago, the nation went through a major upheaval (the housing crises). He continued quoting Exhibit H on the highlighted portion –“ Modern Material for the exterior of homes…” He stated that he and the architect was trying to come up with an individual style of architecture and that his item should have been approved. He was introducing a new layer of architecture to the building. He was not trying to set precedence. He loves diversity and stated he lives next to assisted living and other alternative living quarters. He was trying to build a neighborhood that needed identity. His houses are about trying to get people to take a second look at his neighborhood. Ms. Weldon made the point that he still has a COA on the property. His COA for the five-plex is still active. His application for a revision of the COA was not approved. He stated that he did not understand he still had a COA for the five-plex and continued that he was not going to build the five plex. Chairman Peters stated this was an amendment to the COA that did not pass, therefore his prior COA still stood. Commissioner Ripley asked if he could be reheard. Ms. Weldon stated that if it was substantially different, it could be reconsidered. Mr. Minyard stated that this application was substantially different from the five-plex. The new application would need to be different from the items detailed in the Staff report. VI.Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Attest: I ���f\ lik1c- � Date Date 19