Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff report 2020-11-05Page 1 of 48 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. 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 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 Page 2 of 48 porches were covered with slate or metal roofs. The 1960 serial phot shows the same roof structure for the four houses facing Rock; they may have been identical houses to start. On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, six houses were shown all being one story. Two houses were added on 10th Street. The roofs were shingle with slate or metal on the porches. 1939 Sanborn Map (Note: Site has six houses and lot to east is vacant.) 1950 Sanborn map (Note: Park Place Apts has been built.) 1960 Aerial photo 1970 aerial photo The authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to review new construction in the district is authorized by the Sections 14-172-208 of the Arkansas state statute and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report. The authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission to review new construction in the district is authorized by the Sections Sec. 23-115, Sec. 23-119, and Sec. 23-120 of the Little Rock Municipal code and is shown as an attachment at the end of this report. Page 3 of 48 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 4 of 48 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. PROPORTION Page 5 of 48 The proportion of this building to others in the area of influence is varied. It shares a similar width to Park Place Apartments when comparing the long axis of Park Place. It is wider than all of the other buildings in the area of influence. Just outside the area of influence, it is less wide than Cumberland Towers and the Parkview Towers at 1200 Commerce. The state statute references that review should include both the Area of Influence as well as the entire district. In individual elements of the building, the building is more in proportion to the rest of the area of influence. The windows are vertically oriented and some ganged and some not. The doors are 6’-8” tall with transoms (not overly sized). The window to wall (solid to void) ratio is visually similar to surrounding buildings. The cornice could be considered to be undersized for this height of building. On the corner bay with the mansard roof, the bay seems out of proportion. The brick area on the second floor appears too short to support the visual weight of the mansard roof. RHYTHM The building has a rhythm with the placement of windows and doors that is reoccurring and orderly. The building is also divided into seven bays on the Rock Street and the 10th Street side is divided into five bays. This rhythm of alternating brick and stucco creates a rhythm that could mirror individual houses if attached. The building features two bays, one on each side (with stucco finish), which is recessed instead of having one flat plane that is beneficial. On the Rock Street side, the southernmost stucco bay is recessed five feet. Proposed Elevation along 10th Street for the December 2019 hearing. SCALE This proposed design has divided the building into smaller bays with differing materials, setbacks, and colors. The Park Place apartments are four stories with one in the reclaimed attic area. Other buildings in the area are one, two, and two and one-half stories tall. The building scale is similar in footprint area to Park Place Apartments, but not to any other building in the area of influence. Immediately outside the area of influence lie Cumberland Towers and Parkview Towers. The state statute references that review should include both the Area of Influence as well as the entire district. The scale is influenced with the setbacks. The setbacks are similar with 913 Rock and Park Place Apartments, but the width of the existing buildings along 10th Street and Rock Street are less than the proposed building which makes the scale seem larger. When analyzing the elements of the building with the building itself, the building is in scale with 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 Page 6 of 48 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 7 of 48 aligned vertically at the rear of the structure. There is a rowlock at the floor level to denote the differing stories of the building. The windows are manufactured by Crestmark, are vinyl, all are 2 over 2 vertical, and will have mullions applied to the exterior of the window. The glass will be insulated glass. The windows will be a “Sandstone” color. The rough sizes of the windows are 36” x 78” and 48” x 78”. Windows installed in the brick or stucco will have a 2” wide brick mold on three sides and an oversized wood-like sill on the bottom. Windows in the mansard roof section will have cornices with roofing or flashing applied, wood-like trim on the sides and the bottom of the window will be flush with the mansard roof with sill the same width as the window The doors will be by Simpson, will have a stained wood finish and be 36” by 6’-8” tall with a transom above. They are a six panel wood door. Side elevation of building for the December 2019 hearing. ROOF AREA The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but the existing buildings have pitched roofs where this proposed building has flat and mansard roofs. The HDC measures the heights of building to the highest point. This building with the flat and mansard roofs, brings the highest point of the building closer to the street whereas most of the existing structures in the area of influence have pitched roofs which place the highest point farther away from the street and the viewer. 920 Rock Street is a two story building and has a flat roof. The non-mansard roof portions of the building will feature a 24” tall cornice. The near flat roofs will have a minimal slope to the courtyard and will have a TPO covering. TPO stands for thermoplastic polyolefin, a single-ply roofing membrane that covers the surface Page 8 of 48 of the roof. TPO is actually one of a few different types of rubber, usually a blend of polypropylene and ethylene-propylene rubber. Gutters and downspouts will only be on the rear portions of the building. Some of the bays will feature a mansard roof that will be covered in DeVinci Bellaforte Slate, a composite virgin resin material of interlocking and overlaying tiles. FAÇADE Wall areas consist of three types of materials. Those bays with a limestone tile base will have the second and third floors veneered in brick. The brick on the bay on the street corner will be white and the other brick on the building will be red brick. The other bays will have a stucco finish with a lime wash proposed to give it an aged look. The limestone and the stucco cover the foundation. The three bays at the street corner will have slate shingles on the top floor. Brick is a very common building material in the district and the area of influence. Stucco is used as the primary building material at 1107 Cumberland and is a material historically used in gable ends. Slate is not a common roofing material in the district but has been used on at least four structures (Vila Marre, Cherry House, Lutheran Church, and St Edwards Church). The windows are vertically oriented and fairly symmetrically placed. The windows and balconies clearly identify the different floors of the building. There are multiple vents on the foundation of approximately 2 feet by 4 feet that vent the basement parking level. DETAILING Detailing of the building will be primarily in the porch areas, balconies and roofing. Here the primary elements with be the railings, arched top of the porch, and the slate roof. The building is shown with a cornice that will be at the top of the third floor features dentil molding. It is shown to be painted and is a “wood-like material”. The dormer windows on the third floor will have metal flashing between the slate and the wood trim around the windows. The dormers have flat and arched tops. Details are in scale with the building and not overpowering. Downspouts will not be located on the street facades. No solar panels are being proposed on this building. Metal Railings on steps and porches Proposed Cornice for the December 2019 hearing. Proposed Cornice mockup for the December 2019 hearing. Slate roof shingles for the December 2019 hearing. Page 9 of 48 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 10 of 48 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 11 of 48 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. 3. No electric meters, hvac equipment, cable boxes, satellite dishes, or other utility equipment to be installed on street facing facades. Page 12 of 48 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 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 Page 13 of 48 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 rig ht 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. If the condos are not sold quickly, they may pivot to rentals. An indefinitely vacant building is worse. Page 14 of 48 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 15 of 48 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 Page 16 of 48 two 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 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 Page 17 of 48 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. RHYTHM: The revised design does not feature the row house patterning of materials. Page 18 of 48 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 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. Page 19 of 48 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 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. Page 20 of 48 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. 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 Page 21 of 48 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. SATELLITE DISHES: No change. SIGN: No change. Page 22 of 48 SUMMARY: Staff feels that multifamily developments with some craftsman details can be appropriate infill for lots that have been vacant for forty plus years. However, the construction of multifamily can alter the scale of the area as evidenced in the last three multifamily projects that have been built in the district. Materials and facade treatments become important to blend into the neighborhood. Proposed materials have been used in the district or are historic materials that would have been used in the period of significance with the exception of the stone like veneer on the corner unit. The height of the building is similar to others in the district but taller than some in the area of influence. The state statute speaks to being appropriate to the area of influence and the district as a whole. The district has mid-rise towers such as Cumberland and Parkview Towers but the majority of the district is one and two story homes interspersed with the occasional three story apartment building. The height may be comparable to the other buildings in the area, but the existing buildings have pitched roofs where this proposed building has flat and pitched roofs. The revised design with the mansard roofs being replaced with a 6/12 pitched roof has moved the highest point of the building farther from the street. This should lessen the perceived mass and scale of the project. However, if a development is executed well with materials, details, and rhythm of elements, it can be appropriate to the district. Staff feels that this project is readable as an infill project and does not duplicate a historic building. It uses materials that are found in the district or have been used historically. COMMISSION ACTION: May 28, 2020 Chair Jeremiah Russell made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in attendance, 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 the 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. 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. Page 23 of 48 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 majori ty 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 form 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 24 of 48 Application Page 25 of 48 Cover letter dated November 18, 2019 Page 26 of 48 Cover letter dated March 6, 2020. Page 27 of 48 Location of Proposed Building and parking with contributing and non -contributing structures noted for the December 2019 hearing. Location of Proposed Building and parking with contributing and non -contributing structures noted for the May 2020 hearing. Page 28 of 48 Site plan for the December 2019 hearing. Page 29 of 48 Site plan for the May 2020 hearing. Page 30 of 48 Rock Street Elevation for the May 2020 hearing. 10th Street Elevation for the May 2020 hearing. Side Elevation for the May 2020 hearing. Page 31 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 32 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 33 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 34 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 35 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 36 of 48 Page 37 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 38 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 39 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 40 of 48 Page 41 of 48 Page 42 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 43 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 44 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 45 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 46 of 48 Page 47 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines. Page 48 of 48 Excerpt from the 2016 guidelines.