Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019 emails compliationMinyard, Brian From: Felix <pekarse20@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 11:11 PM To: Minyard, Brian; Ifrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Mayor@littlerock.org Subject: Proposed Artist Place II at Rock and I Oth Hello All, I have several objections to the proposed 18 unit building at the corner of 10th and Rock. Firstly, as proposed the setbacks are nowhere near the recommended guidelines, "Front Yard setbacks should be within plus or minus 10% of the average front yard setbacks within the area of influence as measured from the property line to the nearest structure - usually a porch." I measured the setbacks of ten homes immediately neighboring the proposed structure, and based on those measurements the setback in the front would need to be approximately 14'5" and the side setback on 10th Street would need to be approximately 8 feet. The current proposed setbacks have the property far too close to the sidewalk and will disrupt the feel of the historic properties in the neighborhood. Secondly, the overall mass and scale of the building is completely out of place. Please see the ten homes attached in the photos (along with their measured setbacks). Most of these homes are small 1-2 story buildings. Having one huge building taking up a quarter of the block is the exception, not the norm for this neighborhood. I realize the developers may site Park Place as an example that this building fits in, but it is the ONE building in this neighborhood like that. The buildings that do have some height to them are broken up with porches and gabled roofs, making them less obtrusive than the proposed structure. Even Park Place has its' facade broken up by a horseshoe shaped construction, whereas the proposed structure is predominantly flat and lacking any significant differentiation in its' facade to break up the enormity of the building. Thirdly, the height. Our historic district is supposed to have a height limit of 35'. I do not want anything exceeding that height limit. Finally, the current request for 18 units exceeds the current zoning laws for this plot of land. I am against changing the zoning to accommodate construction of this building. We are predominately single family homes, duplexes, four -plexus, etc. I would prefer to keep the zoning this way for this plot of land. Overall, I am tired of a historic district that largely penalizes the owners of historic homes, with infinite minutiae about siding, fences, windows, roofing, etc, while all of these considerations seem to be brushed aside for any new construction. If people want to build enormous modern looking buildings they can build them outside of the historic district. This building in no way has an historic character and it is out of rhythm with the buildings that are currently here. I would rather wait for a developer to infill with something more appropriate than have this monstrosity take over our charming street. 1 Many Thanks, Felix Pekar, MSW, LICSW Resident at 1010 Rock St Little Pock, AR 72202 206-473-7515 From: Felix Pekar (via Google Photos) <noreply-59ccf7ceb75b7d3dd2e04e826bcd47ee@google.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 8:45 PM To: pekarse20@hotmail.com <pekarse20@hotmail.com> Sublect: Felix Pekar shared "Homes Surrounding Proposed Development -All setbacks measured from inside of sidewalk to front porch or side facade respectively„ with you Felix Pekar shared an album with you Homes Surrounding Proposed Development -All setbacks measured from inside of sidewalk to front porch or side facade respectively I� r �E51 .X .. jewalhoi� You received this iinaii because Felix Pekar shared these photos with you. If you no longer wish to receive email notifications of shared phoios, unsubscribe here. Get the Google Photos app Googie LL v 500 Amphiinea're Pkv+p Mountain Vieav, CA 94043 USA 3 IMF _Wz tv. 'd W, . ), m"A la iN WFI ka Aa -Tp M1 ,'„'.� Y.R..V L rte"`' a�K-i.}�• S-•'-}. [,^: - Fa�'.n T.,I �. •. r i' J 1. • �'S a';':,. nr M%SGY,w�j.� y':6=!��'. �f ��, -'_ mac`— -. •.. -.. �-. 4 - . v R .-�z ; �.y✓� ,� �s'1+,• ..� �.�y`' . ;��. ,�':r `arJ; 1�k" _ f -..� ~' v3+1i���;;,t '�'ij'', y .� ti:.L � �f,,1 Yy�:'i 'y����r^r . ;i! • 4=��3•` '.. ' 1. s • ,s i1 • i � . ^� ,L �,. fpm, r `;' - .fin• S� x�;SS` ��:�` � .: ,�.. `.,,•'' it 'b�" k � r�` �'- `"> n �ate,. - •}`�-5-�. t•'- ' T -_ r• „ry•-... aft - `"�`}.2� L. � ,1�. F . _ !�1�y�.�..''��.4', 'tri• �.5,: � tf3+�-.STQf� � �`x� .. `'� air :�::� �rs.�r. . , • � te �i✓.1`Li �� ?zcj•y'T`� - •:'S',?s��•; ,s x..-' � 'f'�;! •y�° ? _� - �'1 .71 rRi• �. .:; s �� , `µ !'moi �f. f �,' .4HN M..�'1 �C •.'. x;'; ie? = G � ': 5 1 �Ir. �y �� _ Y�'��'!r �` r_ " k:� '•iFg��' �r �. Y� •: �'. r..a, 41, a y�' �! . ++c %'.` v �,`• • ���t' � ',r r __".te`'`a .�-"�.-i• Y!'z .:,{` ?` �.�^�i.:" { _ �"F Jit } lm a, — 4cr�,�' X MA IMAMw Zia, A 1" r�w .... ... --- . ..... .... .57 kk Minyard, Brian From: Jill Judy <jillejudy@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 4:17 PM o: Minyard, Brian Subiect: Proposed development at 10th And Rock Street Good afternoon Brian, please accept this email as my dissent against the proposed condo building at the corner of 10th and Rock. This is one of the quietest, most "residential" blocks in the MacArthur Park historic district and it is not a good location, in my opinion, to allow a variance for a three and four-story building. Park Place, a three story building on Commerce Street, is no doubt the justification for allowing another building that does not meet the size guidelines of the historic district. Well this might allow for some logic in allowing a doubling of that current height restrictions, I believe it is important to remember that it faces a large park and soon -to be renovated large museum and is on three lots. This gives the sense of an openness that can absorb a three-story building. In contrast, putting in a three and -in -some-places four-story building on two -empty -lots surrounded on three corners by truly historic one and two-story structures will not enhance the integrity for a congruency in a historic neighborhood. Sent from my iPhone On Dec ?, 2019, at 5:07 PM, Minyard, Brian <BMinyard!?« iitt_i_erock.gov> wrote: All, The Little Rock Historic District Commission agenda is online at htt s: www.littlerock. ov for -businesses lannin -and-develo men lannin -a endas Click the appropriate Commissions information for the agendas. If you would like to comment on any item, you may email, call, or visit my office. Brian Minyard, AICP Urban Designer City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 bm i nva rd 0 i ittlerock.eov Phone 501-371-4789 Fax 501-399-3435 Minyard, Brian From: Jill Judy <jillejudy@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 4:33 PM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: Letter requesting board denial of project at 10th And Rock Street Dear Commissioners, please accept this email as my dissent against the proposed condo building at the corner of 10th and Rock. This is one of the quietest, most "residential" blocks in the MacArthur Park historic district and it is not a good location, in my opinion, for a variance a three and four-story building. Park Place, a three story building on Commerce Street, is no doubt the justification for allowing another building that does not meet the size guidelines of the historic district. Well this might provide some logic in allowing a doubling of that current height restrictions, I believe that logic is flawed. It is important to remember that Park Place faces a large park and soon -to be renovated large museum and is on a much larger footprint. This gives the sense of an openness that can absorb a three-story building like Park Place. In contrast, putting in a three (and in some places four-story rooftop?) building on three empty lots on a very quiet corner, surrounded on three corners by truly oldest historic one and two-story structures will not enhance the integrity nor congruency in our very special historic neighborhood. For this reason, while I applaud the efforts for new construction and infill, I request that the developer work a little harder at staying within the guidelines of the historic district. After all, the reason that someone would want to build and buy in the historic district is because of the wonderful buildings that surround the lot. We have laws in place to protect our oldest buildings in the MacArthur Park historic district and the history that comes with them. I implore the commission to use its judgment to deny this request as currently presented. Thank you for your consideration. Warm regards, Jill Judy Sent from my iPhone Minyard, Brian From: Susie Taylor <susanmtaylorl3@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 3:19 PM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: Re: letter regarding proposed 10th & Rock project Thanks so much! On Wed, Dec 4; 2.019; 3:15 PM Minyard, Brian <BMin}+ard@littlerock.gov> wrote: Please see the updated application that is included in the staff report online. You may want to edit your letter to address the updated application. Here is a link: https:,Ilwww .littlerock. goy/f or-businesses/piannin.e-and-develUmen t/pi arming-agendas?tab=3 Brian Minyarc-,-A1CP- - Urban Designer City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 bmi nya rd @ I ittle rock.gov Phone 501-371-4789 Fax 501-399-3435 From: Susie Taylor [mailto:susanmtaylorl3Ca gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2019 3:12 PM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: letter regarding proposed 10th & Rock project 904 Rock Street Homeowner Comments/Concerns Pertaining to Proposed Development at 10th and Rock Streets Hello, Brian! We were informed via certified letter of the possibility of an 18 -unit, partial 4- story residential complex was proposed for the 0.41 -acre lot at 10th and Rock Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District which is a local ordinance historic district. When we purchased our property several years ago, our understanding was that we were within a local ordinance district with restrictions as to what we could and could not do with our property. We have happily followed those restrictions and was under the impression that our neighbors would have to do so as well, INCLUDING, Mr. Dale Briggs, the landowner/developer. We so appreciate how the Historic District works hard to protect our amazing old homes from being torn down, we just ask you all take the same thoughtful consideration in what is being built up around them, as well. Concerns at the top of our list are as follows: Potential Parking issues- Many of us rely on the safety and security of being able to park in front of our own homes without issue, as we don't have driveways on this historic block. Many of us have saved up to install security systems to be able to monitor and protect our property, our automobiles and our families coming and going without issue. Providing protected/reserved parking spots for the existing homeowners/residents of Rock and 101h homes, we would be crucial for a development project such as this. With this proposal of an 18 -unit development, even with the proposed underground parking the developers have implied, any and all of guests of those units would certainly cause a tremendous increase in street traffic and even more importantly, a tremendous decrease in street parking availability. MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines- When evaluating compatible infill in the historic district, Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction emphasizes that new construction should be compatible with the MASSING, SIZE AND SCALE of the historic environment. Eleven design factors are considered in evaluating compatibility: siting, height, proportion, rhythm, scale, massing, entrance area, wall areas, roof areas, facade, and detailing and this proposed building falls short and is incompatible in nearly EVERY design factor mentioned. (Please see detailed examples and documentation of incompatibility below) SITING - The building is designed as an L-shaped structure forming a solid 135 -foot facade along Rock Street and a solid 115 -foot facade along 10th Street The maximum building set -back is 3- feet 4 -inches with some portions of the building measuring as little as 20 -inches from the property line. There is a 5 -foot setback between the structure and property lines on Rock and 10th however stairs to parking level extend into this setback and are not calculated on the pian. There are no measurements for eight balconies shown on elevation drawings. Siting is incompatible with the area of influence where most structures have generous front, side and back yards as would be typical in historic residential areas. HEIGHT - 1i21giii Of any new conStiliCtiOn should not exceed 3 -5 -feet. Three of the Un1Ls are three stories and are 38 -feet 2-inces tall while the other 10 "units" are four stories and are 47- foot 2 -inches tall. in the immediate area of impact there are two 2 -story structures, two 2 zstory structures and one 3 '-/z- story structure. The other eight dwellings are 1 -story houses. The height of the four-story sections of this structure are particularly overwhelming and incompatible to the historic houses in the area of influence. PROPORTION - The Rock Street facade is 135 -feet long and the 10th Street facade is 115 -feet long. The heights are from 38 -feet 2 -inches to 47 -feet 2 -inches. There is a small courtyard on the northeast portion of the site for which measurements are not found on the plan. The structure is incompatible with the other buildings in the neighborhood. (Eight structures a -re single story houses with front, back and side. yards, pour structures are two-story with front, back yards. One structure is 2 1/z stories with front back and side yards and one structure is 3 1/z stories with front yard and parking lot in rear.) SCALE - The scale Of this proposed building is incompatible because it is visually overwhelming and unlike any other buildings in the area of influence. The setback is too narrow, the height is too tall, and the t;uilding is too big for the lot size. MASSING - Although some attempt to break up the massing has been made by designing the building to appear as "rowhouses" with slight facade setbacks, using a variety of exterior materials, using two roof heights, the building remains too large for its lot size and therefore incompatible in this historic neighborhood. ROOF AREAS - The roof is flat which is not found in the neighborhood except for the non- contributing apartments across the street on Rock Street. The predominate neighborhood roof styles are gabled and hip. There are no mansard roofs in the area of influence. The mansard roof is incompatible with the neighborhood. FACADE- There are a total of seven different materials found on the facade design. To make the building appear as a "rowhouse" four materials are shown to cover the outer walls: two colors of brick veneer, three shades of stucco, limestone -like ceramic tile veneer and faux slate to simulate a mansard roof. Typical buildings in the area of influence are brick and wood. The facade design is incompatible in this neighborhood where there is little stucco, no limestone and particularly no faux slate to simulate a Mansard roof. There are no examples of this style of rowhouses in the area. DETAILING -The proposed design contains details from the Italianate style: flat roof, arched windows and entrances. The Mansard roof is from the French Renaissance (Second Empire) tradition and is incompatible with the area. Relative to the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction the proposed development at Rock and 10th Streets is clearly incompatible with the historic neighborhood because of its size, scale and massing. This block of the MacArthur Park Historic District contains some of the districts rarest surviving structures and the neighborhood will be adversely impacted by the proposed development. It deserves the protection that is provided by the local ordinance. **If each of the Commissioners have not yet visited the 10th and Rock site in person since this proposal, we feel it is only fair to ask for them to do so. That will allow each of them to view all the neighbors' concerns first hand, see any of the incompatibilities personally and make a fair, educated decision based upon that. Thank you for your time, Bryce & Susie Taylor 904 Rock Street Little Rock, AR 72202 501.350.0375 Su san rn tayl or 13 @ gmail.cym Minyard, Briars From: michele brewer <michele.bland@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 20119 10:30 AIM To: Dale Pekar r": Minyard, Rrian subject: Fie: 18 -knit Condominium proposal for 10th and Rock 1 know you Can't be happly vdtb this at 911 Mr. Minvard. How else can we fight this? Other residents have to jump through hoops to Get a handrail installed. I am happy to help keep the 1 ' 1 i_ .7 � Pveighr�or as historic as possible and �eel those Reales were put in place to protect the. neighborhood From developing like this. 10 i i Pock st T ;-1e Rook, AR 72202 Michele Brewer On Dec 5, 2019, at 8:51 AM, Dale Pekar <dale.pekar @ gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mr. Minyard, Please enter the following comments as my input on subject proposal. ---Dale Dale Pekar 1010 Rock St, Little Rock, AR 72202 Like many people, when planning my move to Little Rock, I spoke with real estate agents about purchasing a home. I recall well one such agent advising me to locate in Conway. When I asked her why I should locate in Conway when I would be working in downtown Little Rock, she didn't offer any reason other than to acknowledge that many people did. That made no sense to me and I settled in the downtown area and walked to work. Part of the reason for settling downtown was the fact that I would be living in a Historic District that would be controlling development. I like the sense of history present in the MacArthur Park Historic District and i hope it will be sustained well into the future. That being the case, I was outraged to see the proposal to cram 18 condominiums into the 3 lots that have remained vacant for some 40 years at the corner of 10th and Rock. Imagine how this would go over if people living in a subdivision were to learn that 3 lots across the street from them which had previously been designated for 1-, 2- or 4 -unit buildings were going to be fitted out with a 3 -story, 40+ foot tall, 18 -unit colossus. i don't think they'd stand for it, and neither should we. Why should developers be allowed to sit on 3 empty lots for 40 years and then expect the city to change the rules so they can make more money off the property than if they were to develop the three lots consistent with the existing rule -set? It's bad policy for the Historic District Commission to validate such behavior. Fitting this many units into this small area violates many of the Historic District Guidelines. I have tried to detail them below with emphasis added. Little Rock City Ordinance Sec 23-120. — General Criteria (f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. It doesn't. Siting. The proposed project fails to meet the Siting criterion in the following particulars. Location and Placement. The Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction Revised December 2016 state on page 53: "New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood." The proposed structure's width and mass are clearly disruptive of the "existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings" none of which are of comparable width or mass. Likewise, the proposed structure is not consistent with the location and placement guidance in the 2016 Guidelines (page 33) as the homes on the west side of Rock are dominated by buildings with the long axis perpendicular to Rock, whereas the proposed project has its long axis parallel to the street. "Proposed building location and placement should be consistent with the prevailing development patterns found within the area of influence of the subject property. For example, on a street segment dominated by buildings oriented with the long axis perpendicular to the street, proposed structures should also have the long axis oriented in a similar fashion." Setback All the surrounding historic buildings have varied, inconsistent setbacks which features are not present in the proposed 18 -unit condominium. See for instance, the single -story, generously -setback Kadel Cottages and the Ferling House directly across the street on 10th Street, and the wide variety of contributing structures on Rock Street. None of the historic structures crowd the street like the proposed structure which actually places porches 20 inches from the sidewalk. In particular, the 2016 Guidelines stipulate on page 33 that, "Front Yard setbacks should be within plus or minus 10% of the average front yard setbacks within the area of influence as measured from the property line to the nearest structure - usually a porch." The proposed structure's front yard Rock Street setback is shown as 9 feet (108") on the applicant's drawings. However, page 3 of 36 of the Staff Report says, "Subtracting porches and steps along Rock Street, the setback is 1'-8". By any reasonable reckoning, the proposes! structure's 20" setback on Rock Street is way out of compliance with the setback provisions In the Guidelines. Measumd setbacks in the neighborhood are shown in the following table II lsing-i these firriire and nIloWinn for a 10% reduction in setback would y , Zj , .y , yield an allowable setback in the area of 13 feet --far more than the 1'8" identified in the Staff Report or the 9 feet identified in the proposal drawings. This problem is further exacerbated by the excessive height of the structure --40-44 feet. Measured Front Setbacks in the Area of influence Address and description Setback as measured from the Setback as measured from the inside of the sidewalk to the inside of the sidewalk to the structure's porch or facade in structure's porch or facade in feet and inches inches 401 10th, rreling douse, 19'8" to the porch 236" southeast corner of Rock and 10th 1000 Iinrk_ southwest 74' to the parch 348" corner of Rock and 10th 922 Rock, red brick 17'5" to the porch 209" apartment building on the northwest corner of Rock and 10th 918 Rock, Red brick More than 17'5" to the facade More than 209" to the facade apartment building 914 Rock Duplex with 5'8" to the porch 68" to the porch porch 12'3" to the facade 147" to the facade 908 Rock 21'4" 256" 904 Rock, Beige house 21'4" 256" 900 Rock, house on the 21'4" 256" corner of Rock and 9th 913 Rock 13'11 167" 920 Commerce 26'4" 316" 407 10th 19'3" to the porch 231" 417 10th 14' to the porch 168" Site Coverage. As stated on page 33 of the 2016 Guidelines: "Site Coverage: Refers to the overall percentage of a lot that is covered by building and should be consistent with the prevailing patterns of development within the area of influence of the subject property. For example, where areas are dominated by single family homes that exhibit front, side and rear yards, proposed new construction should mimic this development pattern and not cover a larger proportion of site area with building." Even a casual drive through the area would reveal that the proposed structure is way out of line with this guidance in its lack of front and side yards. Height. The guidelines state on page 33 say: "Within the MacArthur Park Historic District, the height of any new building should be [sic] not exceed 35 feet. This does not include chimneys. Drawings submitted should be graphic in nature, convey overall proportions and [sic] to scale." Page 4 of 36 of the Staff Report clearly indicates that the proposal is out of compliance with this guideline as the building is identified as being from 40-44 feet tall. Proportion and Scale The guidelines state on page 33 say: "Proportion means the relationship of height to width of the building outline as well as individual components." And on page 35: "Scale means the relative dimension, size, degree or proportion of parts of a building to each other or group of buildings. Scale refers to the ratio of height and width and its relationship to the street facade and should be similar in proportion to neighboring buildings. New c o n s t r u c t i o n should neither be visually overwhelming or underwhelming when compared to the prevailing patterns of development within the area of influence." The overall height of the building facing Rock Street varies from 40-44 feet. The overall width on this side of the building appears to be 140 feet. This yields a height:width ratio on the order of 0.3:1.0. No other building in the 1000 block of Rock has proportions anywhere near this ratio. For comparison purposes, a house 30 feet high and 30 feet wide would have a height:width ratio on the order of 1.0:1.0. The proposed structure is clearly out of proportion to the area. The Staff Report's use of Cumberland Towers and Park Place as comparison pieces is bad practice as both were singled out as being "incompatible intrusions" in the 1976 National Register of Historic Places Inventory -- Nomination Form (available at: http://www.arka.nsaspreservation.com/National- Register-Listings/PDFIPU9768 comb nr.pdf) Minyard, Brian From: Frances McSwain <missymcswain18@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2019 3:04 PM To: Mayor; hoiderheuvel@yahoo.com;0eremiah@roguearch.cam; Ifrederick@hosto.com; rohahcgiawoffice.com; ambercjeswhell.net Cc: Minyard, Brian Subject: GOA 10th and Rock Streets - MacArthur Park Historic District Attachments: Commerits - MP HD Proposed Residential Development .docx Dear Mayor Scott, Commission Chair Holder, OlueP, Curfissi0rCo-Chair Russell, COmriissiflner Frederick, reuerick, Commissioner Hodge and Commissioner Jones Please accept my sincere thanks to each of you for serving on the Little Rock Historic District Commission. I thought I knew how difficult and demanding the Certificate of Appropriateness process was, but until I sat with you as a commissioner -I really did not fully understand how much knowledge one must have and how much time could be spent on the applications. Because I felt I must have the freedom to express my opinion on the COA application that will be heard on December 9, 2019, I resigned from the LRHDC last month. Now that i nava, been worming wl[h my neighbors to understand this project and to determine its compatibility With -our neighborhood, 1 -truly hope my 7[periencP cat, help protect the character of our historic district. However, I will miss working with each of you. Please take the time to read my comments and1p ease take the time to drive by and look at the proposed development site. Very Sincerely Yours, Missy McSwain Comments Pertaining to a Proposed Development at 1®th and Rock Streets MacArthur Park Historic District New in -fill development is crucial to the health and vitality of an historic district. More people create an economically viable and interesting place to live, work and play. An 18 -unit, 3 story residential complex is proposed for the % block lot at 10th and Rock Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District (a local ordinance district.) This neighborhood contains two rare examples of antebellum working-class housing (both built by German immigrant George Kadel in c.1853 and c.1860). The proposed residential complex is designed as an L-shaped structure forming a 140 -foot fagade along Rock Street and a 113.5 -foot facade along 10th Street and occupies most of the %-block lot. The building is designed as rowhouses with seven bays on Rock Street and five bays on 10th Street. The two bays on the corner of Rock and 10th Street measure 44 -feet tall. The other bays measure 40 -feet tall. According to the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction height of any new construction in the MacArthur Park Historic District should not exceed 35 -feet. The roof design on the proposed development is both mansard and flat. Historic roof styles in the neighborhood are gabled or hip. There are a few examples of roof heights exceeding 35 -feet in the area, but these heights are set back from the street and minimized by gabled or hip roofs. Although the site plan of the proposed complex shows the setback to both streets as 5 -feet, the multiple porches and stairs along the facades are only 20 -inches from the property line. The 5 -foot deep balconies designed for all 3 floors appear to eliminate any setback from the sidewalk. The first floor of the building will be elevated by 5 -feet due to the partially submerged parking area. Most of the buildings in the neighborhood have generous front, back and side yards and entrances are in relation to the historic character of the other buildings. Many of the structures in the immediate area of impact are 1 and 1 %-story dwellings. There are several 2 and 2 %- story structures and one 3 %- story structure. The neighborhood architectural styles include elements of Vernacular, Italianate, Colonial Revival and Queen -Anne. There is no mansard (French Renaissance/Second Empire) style in the area of influence. When evaluating compatible infill in the historic district, the guidelines emphasize that new construction should be compatible with the size, scale and massing of the historic environment. Because of the minimal setbacks and straight -up vertical height of the facades, the proposed building will be visually overwhelming and incompatible with the historic fabric of the neighborhood. The setbacks are too narrow, the height is too tall, and the building is too large for the lot size. When I purchased my house in January 2018, I understood my home was within a local ordinance district with guidelines and restrictions as to what I could and could not build on my property. I am readily following those restrictions as I fully expected my neighbors to do also. This fragile little neighborhood (which is one of the earliest platted blocks in the City of Little Rock) deserves the protection of the local ordinance. Missy McSwain 407 E. 10th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 501.944.1126 miss mcswainl9 mail.com .. _. ' � ,� ic�' � • � � 3� • Vis--• Z R 1 �'1 r,+ C �.' 1. � •4 � -.. . •� i-] H CD �p, 3 Yr• x _. ' � ' �.' 1. � •4 � -.. . •� i-] H CD W r C7 "i'd —Ir. . or, IN- S2 Ak AIM -Aft 7S, "i'd —Ir. . or, IN- •�:+ �' 1 1 .tea - -- ��• �_ •"1- _ `.i�,--: -.5,^y R1GEA �w■Y .. ,�TrAff\ MA .' ; • `r '�' tea.. ?w- :��'��'r•- ,. p� . ��r �' + 4 t i • � �it'� IP OWN ��.^ _ "�o-•�' '�`i:�;" ter,,' - Y __ -: -. Lf y.�c4 ,,tyyi,nj�•Fr �f r�"�'�ai,a�.- Sr. _. i ..-.-.?-r •rt- -.a•- *. RFAr Affili ,�: 1 ` - - - ..mow_ - ri�_��j•�Y r--n� g� WW 4ir x I maw';', .= r, ' yd fir ��� "1�T_t . �:� . i�,. , I ` •� . �Y ;:..� � ;fit+�-i ``y ��q' � , - •. d � ; � - '� �` �. Vf.,� - - �'� � F ••{,ray ' •�t; .. ey ,� i. t•��•�, � � r � I ,� `�� J: .yds' �� �'; _ �j W ~_ _ ... .: � � �:2 `l Mire ard, Brian From: Ray Wittenberg <rwittenbergc� oxfordamerican.org> Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2010 2:04 PM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: 10th and Rock project Brian, regarding the proposed project at 10th and Rock, when evaluating compatible infill in the historic district, the guidelines emphasize that new construction should be compatible with the size, scale and massing of the historic environment. Because of the minimal setbacks and straight -up height of the facades, the proposed building is visually overwhelming and incompatible with the historic fabric of the neighborhood. The setbacks are too'narrow, the height is too tall, and the building is too large for the lot size. I would hope the Commisson votes to uphold the guidelines and protect our.historic neighborhood. Ray Wittenberg The Oxford American 501-733-4164 Mi Min yard, Brian From: Collins, Gilbert Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 12:28 PM To: Carney, Dana Cc: iviinyard, Brian Subject: F�Nd. COP, 10th and Rock Streets - MacArthur Park Historic District Attachments: Comments - MPHD Proposed Residential Development .docx; ATT 0000! .htm For file Begin forwarded message.- From: essage: From: Mayor Scott < a orscottC littlerock. ov> Date: December 6, 2019 at 10:46:51 AM CST To: "Collins, Gilbert" < collinsO'litt.ierock. ov> Subject: FW: CDA 10th and Rork Streets - MacArthur F=ork Historic District Any response necessary to this one? ---Frorna Frances Mcg=,wain-<misn symcswainl8 gmail.com� - Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2019 3:04 PM To: Mayor <rna or httlerock. ov>; htilderheuvel ahoo.cvm; •ererniah ro uearch.corn; Ifrederick.@hosto.corr rob@hcgIawoffice.com; ambercj@swbell.net Cc: Minyard, Brian <BMlnyard@Iittlerock.gov> Subject: COA 10th and Rock Streets - MacArthur Park Historic District Dear Mayor Scott, Commission Chair Holder, Commission Co -Chair Russell, Commissioner Frederick, Commissioner Hodge and Commissioner Sones Please accept my sincere thanks to each of you for serving on the Little Rock Historic District Commission. I thought I knew how difficult and demanding the Certificate of Appropriateness process was, but until I sat with you as a commissioner I really did not fully understand how much knowledge one must have and how much time could be spent on the applications. Because I felt I must have the freedom to express my opinion on the COA application that will be heard on December9, X019; I resigned from -the LRHD- C fast month. Now that I have been working with my neighbors to understand this project and to determine its compatibility with our neighborhood, I truly hope my experience can help protect the character of our historic district. however, I will miss working with each of you. Please take the time to read my comments and1p ease take the time to drive by and look at the proposed development site. Very Sincerely Yours, Missy McSwain Minyard, Brian From: Matt Pekar <mpekar@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 1:53 AM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: writing in opposition to proposed COA HDC2019-023 at NE Corner of 10th and Rock Streets I live two blocks (1017 Cumberland St) from the infill proposed in COA HDC2019-023, and am writing in opposition to it. The COA should be rejected in its current form because the proposed structure: * has an inappropriate width and height compared with neighboring structures (pgs 33-35, figure 54 of guidelines) * has inappropriate foundation height compared with neighboring structures (see figure 49, pg 22 of guidelines) * has no side yard space between structures at all, so isn't in compliance with side yard setbacks * has a nearly pure vertical front that does not blend with neighboring structures * has a fence that is too tall to be in compliance with guidelines I recommend the application be pulled and revised to reduce the overall forward weight of the structure and create meaningful spacing between the units. The proposed fence must also be removed or cut to 36 inches to meet requirements. Questions: * Is it confirmed that electrical meters are located in the back? These turned out to be a real eye sore on the north and south sides of Clayton at 915 Scott, and weren't shown in COA plans. * Has it been fully verified that the site is suitable for excavating to the desired depth for partial underground parking? Guidelines referenced: https://www.littlerock.gov/for-businesses/planning and-developementlboards-commissionslhistoric-district- commission-a endaslHDC2019-023%20 uidelines%20exce rt. df Minyard, Brian From: Koenig, Alex S. Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 1 1 :18 AM To: Carney, Dana; Minyard, Brian Cc: Collins, Gilbert Subject: RE: Request for denial of proposed construction at corner of 10th and Rock Street File will be noted. From: Carney, Dana <DCarney@littlerock.gov> Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 10:58 AM To: Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock. oy>; Koenig, Alex S. <akoenie@littlerock.gov> Cc: Collins, Gilbert <gcollinsMittlerock.gov> Subject: FW: Request for denial of proposed construction at corner of 10th and Rock Street For your respective case files From: Collins, Gilbert Sent: Friday, December 6, 2019 10:00 AM To: Mayor Scott <mayorscott@littierock.gov> Cc: Carney, Dana <DCarney@littlerock.gov> Subject: Re: Request for denial of proposed construction at corner of 10th and Rock Street To us. I have copied Dana to put in the folder. Jamie On Dec 6, 2019, at 9:17 AM, Mayor Scott cmayorscott@littlerock.gov> wrote: Can't see that she sent this one anywhere else. To who should these be forwarded? From: Jill Judy <downtowndwellar mail.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 5:17 PM To: Mayor <mayor@7a littlerock.goy> Subject: Request for denial of proposed construction at corner of 10th and Rock Street Dear Mayor Scott, Please accept this email as my opposition against the proposed condo building at the corner of 10th and Rock. This location is one of the quietest, most "residential" blocks in the MacArthur Park historic district and it is not a good location, in my opinion, for granting a variance for a three to four-story building. Park Place, a three story building on Commerce Street, is no doubt the stated justification for allowing another building that does not meet the size guidelines of the historic district. While this might provide some logic in allowing a doubling of that current height restrictions, I believe that this logic is flawed. It is important to remember that the Park Place Apartments face a large open park and a soon -to be renovated large museum and is on a 11 much larger footprint. Till's gives ruHi%, sense o.F an openness that can absorb a three-story building like Park Place. In contrast, putting in a three (and in some places four-story rooftop?) building with no or minimal setbacks on three empty cots ona very quiet corner, surrounded on three corners by the, truly oldest historic unc and Lwu-sLuty sti-Li auCes in the area will not enhance the integrity :'Tor congruency of our very special historic neighborhood. For this reason, while I applaud the efforts of new construction in general and know infill to be very important, I request that the developer work a little harder at staying within the size guidelines of the historic district. After all, the reason that someone would want to build and buy in this part of the historic district is because of the wonderful buildings that surround the lot. We have laws in place to protect our oldest buildings in the MacArthur Park historic district and in turn we protect the history that they represent. I implore the commission to use its judgment to deny this request as currently presented. Thank you for your consideration. Warm regards, Jill Judy lOwner, 405 E 10th St=reet 501-247-3834 Sent from my iPhone Minyard, Brian From: Rebecca Pekar <beccapek@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, December 06, 2019 6:53 PM To: Minyard, Brian; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; Mayor Cc: Rebecca Pekar Subject: Proposed infill at Rock St and 10th Dear Mr. Minyard, The following are my comments on the proposed condominiums. Rebecca Pekar 1010 Rock St, Little Rock, AR 72202 I would like to express my deep concern that the massive proposed complex will destroy our unique neighborhood. Rock St. is narrow and the intrusion of a structure of this height, mass and minimal setback has potential for considerable negative impact. A project of this size and scope simply does not belong on a lot this size or in a quiet historic neighborhood. The three block section of Rock St. from the turnaround at 630 to 9th St is a very quiet, friendly neighborhood. The wide area between the curb and inner edge of the sidewalk are common to all properties including the proposed structure. Existing generous setbacks give the street an open, friendly feel. There is a good mix of modest homes and larger dwellings. Some of these may have been built as or converted to apartments, but all are to the scale of a family home. The houses facing the 10th St elevation are of particular historic significance and also have generous setbacks. The following pictures will walk you from the turnaround at the south end of Rock St to the intersection with 10th. ie�v ,"F-o .seat:: -.- - .—I Now try toimagine the condo building front of you......... After walking down the open 1000 block you come to the corner of Rock and 10th. Right in front of you rises a 44' high corner facade. As you cross the street and continue down Rock the eye moves from the 5' high foundation with massive 2' x 4' grates to the overpowering three story front elevation. The balconies and steps are only 1' 8" from the fence on the property line. The first floor balconies are right at eye level and within arms length of passersby. There is little variation in the facade except color and material. T� n___._� 1__.._ 1__ 1___-i_� t L:,. }. L-. highest ti F ♦.. «. .. .-h..�r. A 1t is L1a lud to ase the I1Cight of this structure oil the highest points of surrounding hisLo11<. YropL;tles. A3 -- 'it can see in photos below the examples sited have varying heights and setbacks of porches, dormers, attics etc. A gradual easing into the isolated highest point achieves an open friendly feeling which the proposed structure does not. There is no legitimate comparison to justify the Uniform height of the complex. As you can see even Park Place was broken up on the long side expanse with a 9' the inner sidewalk edge for the back portion and an impressive 26' for the front half of the setback. As an added breakup of mass these apartments also have a center front courtyard area not visible in this photo. A comparison was made between the condo front to the long back axis of Park Place but that is not valid as the frill width is broken by the front courtyard and side inset. I believe these three blocks of bock St should be viewed as a whole. We've lost two significant structures to fire in the 1000 block and sensitive infill is critical_ to maintaining the character of the neighborhood. At some point in the future those lots will also come up for review for infill. If this proposed condominium is approved we will lose the opportunity to preserve the quiet residential feel of this unique street. The historic homes on 10th facing the south side of the condos are affected in the same way T see no pressing need to develop the lot. It causes no problems and seems to function as a de facto dog park right now. It would definitely pay to wait for a more historically appropriate use and design. A few general_ questions observations; Will people want to use the underground parking -8' seems low and claustrophobic. the upper balconies will be very near the sidewalk -a potential Hazard? There are underground springs and streams in the vicinity -if excavating hits those will the foundation automatically be made even higher? I hope you will walk our neighborhood before making a decision. Please call if you have any questions. 501- 554-5585 Best regards, Rebecca Pekar Minyard, Brian From: Theodore Holder <holderheuvel@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 7:59 AM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: Fw: In -fill Development at corner of Rock and 10th Sts. Another one ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Antoinette Johnson <aiohnsonconsultant@yahoo.com> To: "Ifrederick@hosto.com" <Ifrederick0hosto.com>; "robOhcglawoffice.com" <rob rOhcgIawoffice.com>; "holderheuvel_@vahoo.com" <holderheuvei@yahoo,com>; "ambercu@swbell.net" <ambercuCPswbeil.net>; "jeremiahProguearch.corn" <jeremiahOropuearch. com>; "mayorCplittle rock. gov" <mayor�]a littlerock. gov_>; Brian Minyard <bminyard little_rock.org> Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019, 1:46:32 PM CST Subject: In -fill Development at corner of Rock and 10th Sts. Dear HD Commissioners: Thank you for your service to our city. I sat with several of you during my tenure on this very committee and know how much time and energy goes into being on this commission. Your tireless work to preserve the historic integrity of McArthur Park is evident in the quality of architecture we have been able to retain and build in, what has become, a very sought-after area of our wonderful city. I am writing today to encourage you to work with the developers of the condominium project at 10th and Rock Streets to reduce the scale, mass and height of this proposed development, along with a requirement to install wood or aluminum -clad wood windows. After walking the site, I strongly believe the project, as proposed, is just too large for this lot and does not take into context its surrounding residential structures. I do believe that a condominium complex could be a wonderful asset to this community; however, the scale of this proposed project is too large to compliment even the most diverse buildings in use, style and size of the existing historic buildings within its immediately surroundings. This large of a scale of a structure will overwhelm the immediate existing homes and other buildings. I encourage you to deny the project as proposed and work with the developers to reduce its massing to compliment its surrounding historic structures. Again, thank you for your time and energy, Antoinette Johnson, PhD 501-350-5931 www.joh nsondesignco nsulting.com Minyard, Brian From: Theodore Holder <holderheuvel@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 7:57 AM To: Minyard, Brian Subiect: Fw: Pronncari infill dPNPInnmPnt At 1 nth anri R.nr_,k Sts, Another one ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Cheri Nichols < nichols79 comcast.net> To: Ted Holder <holderheuvelCa)yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, December 8, 2019, 8:02:31 PM CST Subject: Proposed infill development at 10th and Rock Sts. Ted, I've seen the drawings for the proposed 18 -unit infill project at 10th and Reck Streets, and I hope the Historic District Commission will defer the application until some very substantial revisions can be made -- particularly since the project can't move forward anyway without a change in zoning that has not yet occurred. in my opinion, the proposed developir�ent is very much out of scale for the historic district. It is both too tall and too dense. (A project of this sca ee in racf; rs rio�aiiowuuvrre�unaer'tYie existing zoning; nibrce; the requested rezoning.) In addition, the "rowhouse" design does not reflect the MacArthur Park neighborhood's historic architecture. Rowhouses virtually were nonexistent in Little Rock during the 19th and early 20th centuries. In all of the research I've done on the city's historic buildings and neighborhoods, I've come across exactly one row of connected dwellings -- long since demolished -- that might have qualified as rowhouses (except l think they actually were apartments). The so-called Caroline Row apartments simply are two duplexes side by side, and their scale is nothing like what is being proposed at 10th and Rock. Historic multi -family dwellings are found throughout the historic district, and I would hope the applicant could look to those buildings for design inspiration. A number of Craftsman -style fourplexes, for example, are located in the district and might serve as models for the design of multi -family infill. I encourage the Historic District Commission to ensure that new development in the historic district is similar in scale, and compatible in design, with the historic architecture that the district was created to protect. Thank you, Cheri Nichols 1721 S. Gaines St. Little Rock, AR 72206 501-375-2686 501-951-1941 Minyard, Brian From: Nick Schoenemann <schoenemannnj@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 2:10 AM To: Minyard, Brian; Ifrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com Subject: Comments on proposed infill development at 10th & Rock, for 12-9-19 mtg Dear Commissioners and Mr. Minyard, I'm writing to express my concerns about the current proposal before you for the Dec. 9 meeting of the MacArthur Park Historic District Commission, to develop the vacant residential lots at 10th and Rock Streets. As a resident of 403 E 10th Street, directly across from the proposed development, I value the green space that's remained open to its neighbors for almost 50 years. It's a welcome respite from the urban surroundings, ringed by 4 old-growth oak and pecan trees and studded with daffodils in the spring, where residents walk their dogs, walk through the "desire path" (shortcut) to get to work and other parts of the city, play with their kids, stargaze at night, and enjoy a little bit of wildness in the manicured city landscape. It's one of the reasons I most enjoy living where I do, and I hope it will remain. In the event that development goes forward, however, I believe that the current proposal for new construction is incompatible with the massing, size, and scale of the historic environment of our neighborhood. For example: - The building is more massive than any other in the area of influence in site coverage and length, and is rivaled as a similar building only by Park Place Apartments, a 3.5 story building, in height; most other dwellings are one-story, and several are 2- and 2.5 stories. The scale overwhelms neighboring structures. Moreover, heights of the third -story portions of the proposed structure, at 40 -feet and 44 -feet, respectively, exceed the 35 -foot limit to which new construction is subject. - The Mansard roof is unlike any other roof in the area of influence or district; among the taller buildings, pitched roofs predominate. - Proposed setbacks for the structure are much narrower than those of many surrounding structures; the narrow setback of the south side of Park Place, facing 10th, contains no entrances or porches, and I would argue is inapplicable as a supporting citation - the main entrance side, facing east, is set back very generously, by contrast. Furthermore, the adjacent buildings, Park Place and 913 Rock, while containing setbacks similar to the proposed structure, are much less wide where those setbacks occur, minimizing their encroaching effects. - The construction will require a rezoning from single family to multifamily, and the addition of a contiguous building of such width and height to achieve the desired density will alter the scale of the area of influence. Additional concerns include: - Two of the four tall, old-growth trees are intended to be removed, one along each street, which changes the feel and look of each street and reduces their appeal. However, I'm concerned that the depth of excavation required for the project, including for its underground parking, will harm the root systems of the remaining two trees and jeopardize their survival. This would be a great loss. - While proposed on-site parking may be adequate for residents of the development, I'm concerned that visitors to the 18 units will park on 10th and Rock Streets, which already suffer from street -parking congestion that can practically reduce traffic flow to one car's width. Further, the condos and Park Place sharing one curb cut may entail additional congestion and street traffic entering and exiting. For these reasons I hope you will find the proposal incompatible as currently designed. I look forward to attending the meeting. Kind regards, Nick Schoenemann Minyard, Briar Frani: Riley Khoury <rileykhoury9gmail.com> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 8:43 AM To: Minyard, Brian CeuFNcet: TmAln Hal! Regarding ,Rock and 1Qth Street Hello Brian, TTnfnrt„nately I cannot make it tnnight but I have concerns about the condos proposed for 10th and Rock Street. My partner and I live in the Park Place apartments at 10th and Commerce. Since Josh Malone purchased our building we have seen a major spike in rent, horrible maintenance and no building up keep. He is money driven and not communicating with residents about any of these major changes coming to the area. I am not certain but I believe he's the one who wants to build In the field at ROck and nth and he should absolutely ti's Stopped. absolutely vv s�o eu. I have been in a fender bender due to low visibility when pulling out of the parking lot of Park Place because we already '.h ave tnn much street parking ort these 5mali Streets, This area needs to remain accessible to the residents who have lived here for so long. This building will decrease the integrity of the neighborhood and increase the price without adding real value. I hope we can stop it! Riley Khoury Minyard, Brian From: Rachel Patton <rpatton@preservearkansas.org> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 10:14 AM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: Preserve AR Comments RE: HDC2019-023 Attachments: Preserve AR Letter to LRHDC 12092019.pdf Hi Brian, Hope you had a good weekend! Thanks again for coming to Dollars & Sense in Conway last Friday. I hope the information presented was helpful. I'm attaching my comments in regard to HDC2019-023, the proposed infill project at 10th and Rock streets. Please let me know if you need additional information. Thank you, Rachel Rachel Patton I Executive Director Preserve Arkansas Office: 201 W. Fourth Street I North Little Rock, AR 72114 Mailing: P.O. Box 305 1 Little Rock, AR 72203 501-372-4757 1 www.PreserveArkati.sas. Join here: www.PreserveArkansas.or Find us on Facebook:.w-ww.Facebook.com/-PreserveAR I Board of Dirmvtors Bobbv Bralv President Mason Ellis, AIA President -Elect Jill iudy VP of Development Shelle Stormoe VP of Education Jodi Barnes, Ph.D. VP of Advocacy Kathy Boyette Treasurer Hunter M. Windle Secretary Julie Bridgforth neniJe Ennett Mike Kinkade Tim Maddox, AIA Duncan McKinnon, Ph.D Edward Salo, Ph.D. W. Chris Sheppard, AIA Mandy Welch Ex -Officio Ruth A. Hawkins, Ph.D. Stacy Hurst Scott Kauf���an Carl H. Miller, Jr. Cheri Nichols Greg Phillips Debbie Shea Hon. John Thurston David Ware, Ph.D. Charles Witsell, Jr., PRESERVE ARKANS 1% F" restore, redevelop, revitalize December 9, 2019 City of Little Rock Historic District Commission Brian !\I nyar , Planner it Planning and Development Department 723 W. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 RE: HDC2019-023 NE Corner of 10 and Rock Streets, Proposed Infill Dear Brian, While Preserve Arkansas recognizes the importance of compatible new Construction in 111stolic ne,9111)OrllOoLtJ, rile proposed 1lifii project at u e northeast corner of 10`h and Rock streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District does not adhere to the Historic District f_'ornrnissiorn's giidelin:.s for -pw cnnstnlrt?on. The proposed building height of 44' at the corder bay and 40' for the remaining 10`h Street and Rock Street facades is not in compliance with the HDC height guidelines of 35' or less for new construction. The building's setback from the street, when figuring in the width of porches and exterior stairs, will be only 1 foot, 8 inches from the property line. Furdhiermore, the i31assUIR and scale of t1his project seems out of proportion wh en compared to i11SCor1C - dings in file iYiiMed ate area of i_IiII jl.l� _ i 11C iilansaiii- iy1C fool is not reflective of predominant architectural styles in this part of the historic district either. I am writing to urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to table FAIA the above -referenced application, allowing the architect and developer to modify the design in ways that will bang it into compliance with HDC guidelines. The opportunity to develop this lot on one of the earliest -platted blocks within the MacArthur Park Historic District should be done with sensitivity to the high concentration of historically significant buildings nearby. Thank you, Rachel Patton Executive Director Preserve Arkansas - 3 j, �_. � c.�7;7• i PJ,�. BO::.�OJ � Little �OCrC: �.� j 7•���.�-0-30-5 Minyard, Brian From: Patricia Blick <patricia.blick@quapaw.com> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 11:36 AM To: Minyard, Brian; Joe van den Heuvel Cc: Ashli Ahrens; David Robinson; Tim Heiple Subject: QQA Comments LRHDC December 2019 Attachments: QQA Comments LRHDC December 2019.pdf Hi Brian and Joe, The QQA Board had an opportunity to review the proposal for the 10th & Rock project this weekend at our annual board retreat. As a result, we are submitting the attached comments. I plan to attend the meeting tonight to present them, but I wanted to give you a head's up. I have copied my board president, Ashli as well as our advocacy committee chair, David and the project proponents. Thank you, Patricia Patricia M. Blick Executive Director Quapaw Quarter Association Curran Hall 615 E. Capitol Avenue P.O. Box 165023 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 501-371-0075 Ext. 4 Quanaw.com i E PRESERVING THE PAST. SHAPING THE FUTURE. Tv: Ted Holder, Chair, LRHDC Brian Minyard, Planner; City of Little Rock FROM Patricia Blick, QQ". ED RE: Proposed Development, NE Corner 10th and Rock Streets DATE: December 9, 2019 The QQA has reviewed the proposed project, at the staff, Advocacy Committee, and the full board level and would like to share the following comments with the LR NDC. The QQA Board possesses a wide variety of experiences and perspectives, however, our mission is to preserve greater Little Rock's historic places and the comments reflect this commitment. The QQA Board recognized several positive atributes of the proposal: The QQA supports the devieopment of this vacant lot and believes having more owner occupied residences in the historic district will strengthen the historic neighborhood Higher density in this urban area is anticipated ■ Use of the exisitng curb cut to access the site ® Parking under the building and hidden at the rear of the property ® Breaking up the mass of the building with varied materials and varied setbacks a There was extensive discussion on the proposed materials, and while not unanimous, the response was generally positive for quality of the materials submitted. The exception to this "'- would the proposed Use VF vinyl I'Dir the windows, th.-I i1:1: be addressed under areas of concern The QQA also wanted to share areas of concern: • Though there have been modifications to mitigate the height, mass and scale of the building, there is a continued concern that it will overwhelm the scale of the historic resources in the immediate vicinity • Though the main block of the builicing is setback from the sidewalk and the street, the proposed porches and stairs are almost at the sidewalk, which is not consistent with prevailing setbacks of historic properties in the immediate vicinity • Use of vinyl windows -if it is not feasible to install wooden windows, the recommednation is to use metal clad wooden windows Quapaw Quarter Association Curran Hall 615 E. Capitol Avenue P.O. Box 165023 Little Rock, Arkansas 72216 501-371-0075 Minyard, Brian From: Malone, Walter Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 12:27 PM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: FW: COA 10th and Rock Streets - MacArthur Park Historic District Attachments: Comments - MPHD Proposed Residential Development. docx fyi From: Frances McSwain [maiito:missymcswain18(a gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 11:52 AM To: Malone, Walter Subject: Fwd: COA 10th and Rock Streets - MacArthur Park Historic District Hello Walter: I am forwarding an email I wrote to Mayor Scott, Little Rock Historic District Commissioners and staff regarding the proposed infill development at 10th and Rock Streets. I understand that several letters and calls have been made opposing this project which I trust Brian will provide to you. I also hope a few of my neighbors will testify at the hearing today. As designed, the complex does not comply with the MacArthur Park Historic District guidelines for new construction because the setbacks are too narrow, the height is too tall, and the building is too large for the scale of the neighborhood. Nor does the proposed development adhere to current zoning (R4). It will overwhelm our fragile little historic neighborhood for which the city ordinance was designed to protect. Thank you for your time and attention and let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Missy McSwain 501.944.1126 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Frances McSwain <m1ssymcswainl8@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 3:03 PM Subject: COA 10th and Rock Streets - MacArthur Park Historic District To: <mayor(�littlerock.gov>, <holderheuvel�a vahoo.com>, � eremiah� Kpguearch.com>, clfrederick@hosto.com>, <rob@hcglawoffice.com>, -�arrtberc' swbell.net> Cc: <bmin and littlerock. ov> Dear Mayor Scott, Commission Chair Holder, Commission Co -Chair Russell, Commissioner Frederick, Commissioner Hodge and Commissioner Jones Please accept my sincere thanks to each of you for serving on the Little Rock Historic District Commission. I thought I knew how difficult and demanding the Certificate of Appropriateness process was, but until I sat with you as a commissioner I really did not fully understand how much knowledge one must have and how much time could be spent on the applications. Because I felt I must have the freedom to express my opinion on the COA application that will be heard on December 9, 2019, I resigned from the LRHDC last month. Now that I have been working with my neighbors to understand this project and to determine its compatibility with our neighborhood, I truly hope my experience can help protect the character of our historic district. However, I will miss working with each of you. Please take the time to 'read my rnmmepYc and p ea,se Ya Ke 7hP fim[ t n qt -rive by and Inok of the proposed development site. Very y 'Sincerelly 1 ours, Mfissy IN IT cSwain Minyard, Brian From: J Carman Inc Fine Art Advisory <jcarmaninc@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, December 09, 2019 1:41 PM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: HDC Citizen Comments, 10th and Rock Hi Brian, Hope you are doing well. Please share the following comments with your commissioners Dear Historic District Commissioners, I wanted to weigh-in on the proposed infill development at 10th and Rock Streets. I own two properties within a short walk to this location (908 Scott St. and 523 E. 6th St.) I recognize that thoughtful infill is a boon to the quality of life in any historic district, but I have some concerns about the project as it is currently proposed. In short, this building seems unnecessarily huge, and I am concerned about its minimal setback, overwhelming height, and generous mass/scale. It appears that it will measure 140 feet along Rock and more than 110 feet along 10th St. When viewed from a diagonal perspective at that intersection, it will be a towering wall in multiple directions, with a dizzying array of materials and surfaces. I know you have a difficult task before you, weighing the hopes and dreams of citizens and neighbors against the hopes and dreams of a developer. • Several small residential cottages are across the street from the site, and the scale of the proposed building seems insensitive to protecting and respecting their character and modest scale. • It has been proposed that some components of the project will surpass the 35 -foot height limit published in the guidelines. Though I recognize that these are "guidelines" and not rules, this seems a slippery slope. • The proposed mansard roof is out of sync with the district. Most of the roofs of the contributing structures that the district celebrates are hip or gabled. While new construction certainly doesn't have to mimic the roof types of contributing structures nearby, it seems ill-advised to introduce such a distinctive "historic" replica -lite roof style in a historic district. Mansard roofs are Second Empire and evocative of Paris, which is charming, but doesn't quite fit in this context of working-class cottages and 2 story single single-family homes at this particular location. • I really like the fact that the proposed plan includes porches, since they promote character and community. However, these porches would ultimately be less than 3 feet from the property line, and the balconies would practically hover over passers by on the sidewalk. • Best practice suggests that new construction in a historic district should be of its time. With the exciting developments at the nearby Ants Center, it seems that this is a lost opportunity to craft a thoughtful, cutting-edge design that could be an aesthetic destination in its own right • Once this building is in place, there will be virtually no front yards or side yards or any grass to speak of. Yards are important to the rhythm of residential historic districts. • Many of the surrounding properties have 10 to 14 foot ceilings and windows that are quite tall. The proposed structure has shorter ceilings and shorter windows, thus presenting a different visual rhythm than the historic fabric that surrounds it. With careful consideration and care, this project could be retooled such that it would be a gift to residents and visitors to the district. I hope that you will encourage the applicant to ponder community comment so that this is a project we can all be excited about. There is, after all, lots to love, especially with no new curb cuts and with recessed parking. I'd like to think there is a way to increase the setbacks, lower the height, and craft something that is compatible and complimentary to the neighborhood. Little Rock has virtually endless square footage for development throughout town where developers can build whatever they can dream up. Our one and only local ordinance historic district is arguably a very special location where the most care and diligence is warranted. Last, but not least, I implore you to physically visit the space. I have trouble believing that any person who has been to this location on -foot could view this project, as currently proposed, as anything other than a very sizable distraction from the appreciation of the surrounding homes. Thank you for considering my comments. Resspectfially, - - - -- Jennifer Carman Jennifer Carman, ASA J. CARMAN, inc. rine Art Advisory Accredited Senior _appraiser; American Societe- of Appraisers _accredited Member: :kppralsers association of America accredited ;Member: International Societl of appraisers IRS Qualified _appraiser 501.744.8049 www.AgpraisingFineArt.com Facebook: htt :iAwrw.fatebook.comllIttlerocka raiser ?interest: htto:Ilointorest.camlartaoaraiser Twitter: http;lltwitter.comflcarmaninc ' " This message (including any attachments) contains COtiFIDEhtiTLA-T- information intended for a specific individual, and is protected b�- law-. If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message irrimeelialely. . Aiiy disclosure or distribution of this message, or the taping of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.