Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020 07 21 Emails Compilation1 Minyard, Brian From:Minyard, Brian Sent:Friday, December 13, 2019 9:29 AM To:'Cheri Nichols' Subject:RE: Proposed infill development at 10th and Rock Sts. Thanks, Ted sent it to me and the commissioners got it in the packet before the meeting. The applicant has been revising the design and we should see something different in March. Brian From: Cheri Nichols [mailto:cgnichols79@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2019 5:49 PM To: Minyard, Brian Subject: Fwd: Proposed infill development at 10th and Rock Sts. Brian, I should have sent this e-mail to you as well as to Ted. I'm glad the project has been deferred and hope that significant changes will be made before it comes back to the HDC. I'd like to underscore what I said, below, about a "rowhouse" design not being appropriate, not only in the MacArthur Park Historic District but in any of Little Rock's historic neighborhoods. The inspiration for infill development needs to come from types of buildings that historically were common, such as the Craftsman-style fourplexes that are sprinkled throughout the MacArthur Park HD. Sincerely, Cheri -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Proposed infill development at 10th and Rock Sts. Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 20:02:30 -0600 From: Cheri Nichols <cgnichols79@comcast.net> To: Ted Holder <holderheuvel@yahoo.com> Ted, I've seen the drawings for the proposed 18-unit infill project at 10th and Rock 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 development is very much out of scale for the historic district. It is both too tall and too dense. (A project of this scale, in fact, is not allowed under the existing zoning; hence, 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 2 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 I 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 1 Minyard, Brian From:Robin Loucks <rwloucks@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:29 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Denial of HDC2019-023 Dear Brian, Harry and I have thoroughly examined the plans for the apartment/condo development and we understand the concerns of the neighbors. We agree that this massive project (in parentheses even though it is next door to an overly large apartment complex) really does not echo the structures in the in the neighborhood In either design or Architectural compatibility. As downtown residents for over 50 years we have watched our downtown rebirth from the beginning and while we understand developers wish for profit we also understand the need to preserve the historic integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods. By allowing this high density project In a low density zoning area the door is opened to other zoning variances not only in the MacArthur Park Historic Park area but also sets the stage for similar variances in the Governor’s Mansion area. Please note our opposition to HDC2019-023. Sincerely, Robin and Harry Louis Sent from my iPad 1 Minyard, Brian From:Theodore Holder <holderheuvel@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 10:04 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Fw: HDC2019-023- Please Deny Attachments:Letter to Mayor Scott, LRHD Commissioners, CLR Staff.docx This is another one. I scanned it quickly, but did not pore over it. Ted Holder ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Frances McSwain <missymcswain18@gmail.com> To: Minyard, Brian <bminyard@littlerock.gov>; "mayor@littlerock.gov" <mayor@littlerock.gov>; Latimer, Sherri <slatimer@littlerock.gov>; "wmalone@littlerock.gov" <wmalone@littlerock.gov>; "caleman@fridayfirm.com" <caleman@fridayfirm.com>; "lindseymboerner@gmail.com" <lindseymboerner@gmail.com>; "lfrederick@hosto.com" <lfrederick@hosto.com>; "rob@hcglawoffice.com" <rob@hcglawoffice.com>; "holderheuvel@yahoo.com" <holderheuvel@yahoo.com>; "ambercj@swbell.net" <ambercj@swbell.net>; "jeremiah@rougearch.com" <jeremiah@rougearch.com>; "gcollins@littlerock.com" <gcollins@littlerock.com>; "lrzoning@littlerock.gov" <lrzoning@littlerock.gov> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020, 1:01:23 PM CDT Subject: RE: HDC2019-023- Please Deny FRANCES M. McSWAIN * 407 E. 10TH STREET * LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 May 12, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor, City of Little Rock Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Department of Planning and Development, City of Little Rock Brian Minyard, Urban Designer, Department of Planning and Development, City of Little Rock RE: HDC2019-023- Please Deny Dear All: As a property owner and resident in the MacArthur Park Historic District I urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023. Appropriate infill development is welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed for three vacant lots at 10th and Rock Streets does not comply with the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and will forever diminish the District’s historic integrity, character and sense of place. New buildings should be harmonious in form, material, setting and scale within the established District. The zoning for this area is R4-A – Low Density Residential District - which allows for the maximum development of duplex dwellings on each lot. A 15-unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that will disrupt the continuity of the area of influence. The eleven design factors (as outlined in the MacPark Guidelines) are critical compon ents used to preserve the character and architectural heritage of the neighborhood. Below are the design factors and comments as to the proposed project’s compatibility with each factor: 1. Siting - As one of the earliest residential blocks established in Little Rock the 10th and Rock Street area contains a charming mixture of 19th century single-story cottages and larger two-story homes. Two early to mid- 20th century residential buildings are also present in the area. The proposed complex is inconsistent with the prevailing development patterns because the setbacks are too narrow and the buildings cover too much of the site. Typical front setbacks in the 2 area are 20 feet. Most structures also have side and rear yards which enhances their siting and provides a livable feel to the setting. The front setbacks for this development are 5 feet on 10th Street and 6 feet on Rock Street. The complex’s side yard setback is 2 feet on 10th Street and 5 feet on Rock Street. The backyard area is not visible to either 10th or Rock Streets. 2. Height – The exact height of this project is difficult to determine because of a partially-submerged underground parking level which plans read “varies from 9 – 11 feet”. With 35 feet as the maximum height for new construction (measured from lowest finished floor) the real height of the building could well exceed this limit because of the unknown depth of the underground parking level. Any new construction that is taller than 35 feet is out of compliance with the guidelines. 3. Proportion – With the exception of Park Place, the Mid-Century apartments facing Commerce Street, there are no other structures in the area of influence that have the same proportions as this development’s height and width. The prevailing patterns of development in the area are single and two-story residential homes. The siting of Park Place Apartments is quite different from this project because of the wide front setback (26.5 feet) which also opens onto MacArthur Park. 4. Rhythm – This design is not harmonious with the neighborhood and does not reflect the rhythm of the existing historic structures. Many of the homes in the area have interior ceiling heights of 10 feet -14 feet. Although window styles vary, most structures have large windows and deep and spacious front porches that create a graceful feel and invite human interaction with the sidewalk and street. It seems that every effort has been made to maximize residential space within the complex which makes the rhythm of doors, windows, porches, and balconies unlike any other structures in the area of influence. Each of the three floors appear short and squatty when compared to the existing rhythm of the neighboring structures. 5. Scale – The design of the development as it fits into the neighborhood is visually overwhelming and too large for the three lots. The three buildings are within 10-11 feet of each other with hard surfaces on the ground level. A total of six metal utility bridges connect the second and third levels of each building. Metal roof structures span the space between the buildings which ties the buildings together and reads as one large structure. There are certainly no buildings in the area of influence connected by metal bridges and metal roofs. Most of the neighboring structures are surrounding by green space and mature landscaping. Please note the application submission includes only four photographs of structures in the area of influence. These four structures are the largest buildings in the area. There are eight one- story and one-and-a-half story cottages that face the site and are not represented in the application. 6. Massing – The massing of this development is not compatible with the surrounding area. There are no other historic buildings with this volume and magnitude that are as close to the street and have this roof form. Because the three buildings in the complex are joined by metal utility bridges at the second and third floors and spanned by a metal roof structure, the buildings will present to the street as one massive structure. This design does not relate to the massing of any other buildings in the area of influence. Again, please note the lack of photos in the submission showing the surrounding cottages and streetscapes. 7. Entrance Areas – It is unclear from the application how the doors are designed. There are transoms shown in the elevations but not on the entry door cut sheet. Nor is the height, width and material indicated on the cut sheet. The typical entrance areas in the District are enclosed by large and inviting porches with brick or wood columns and railings. The scale of the neighboring structures reflects the high ceilings in the interior entryways whereas the design of these entrance areas appears smaller and less inviting. 8. Wall Areas – Most of the wall areas in this design are a solid three-story vertical face with small porches, doors, overhangs, metal balconies, metal utility bridges and different sizes of single, double, and triple vinyl windows. The windows are vinyl with “wood-like “cornices and trim. It is unknown if the windows are two over two or four over one as the configuration differs on the elevations and the project information. The building on the corner of Rock and 10th Streets is stepped back at the third-floor corner to provide a balcony for the top unit. The railings for the balconies are described as “Decorative Iron Railing” but there are no cut sheets for the product. The exterior walls are finished in a variety of products including brick veneer, stucco and a “limestone like” ceramic tile. Most of the surrounding homes are sided with wood but there are several brick structures. There is a small amount of stucco, no limestone and very little synthetic material. Because of the verticality of the walls, the variety of 3 materials (including vinyl, metal, iron, limestone-like tile, stucco, brick and wood and wood-like projects) the wall areas depicted on this plan are incompatible with the wall areas of the neighboring houses. 9. Roof Areas – The complex’s mansard roof area is unlike any other roof in the area. There are a total of seven sloping dormers on the third floor with metal roofs and parapets. The drawing also indicates metal roof systems covering the utility bridges and connecting the buildings together. There are no metal roof systems on primary structures in this neighborhood. There are no metal dormer roofs and metal roof systems spanning any neighboring buildings. Composition shingles are on the mansard roof of the third floor as well as the second story overhangs and the first-floor porches. The historic structures in the area of influence have hipped or gabled roof structures covered with composition shingles. There are no mansard roof systems on the neighboring structures. 10. Facades - Most of the façade is stucco and brick veneer except for the 10th and Rock Streets corner units that are sheathed with 12-inch x 24-inch “stone like” tile also described as “limestone like”. Most of the neighboring cottages and homes are sided with wood. Brick is used on several of the structures. There is a minimal amount of stucco and no limestone or ceramic tile in the area of influence. Please note 1000 Rock St. is partially covered in Permastone which was popular in the 1930s. It came in veneer panels and was applied over wood siding. Permastone is not a desirable material to emulate in a modern design. The combination of limestone-like ceramic tile, brick veneer, stucco, vinyl windows, metal utility bridges, decorative iron and metal railings, wood brackets, wood-like cornices, metal roofing and composition shingles present a fussy appearance that detracts from the surrounding simple wood and brick structures and is not compatible. Compared to the antebellum Kadel Cottage 1 (c. 1852) and Kadel Cottage 2 (c. 1860) which both stand on 10 th Street directly across the street from this project, this design is not only incompatible but is also insulting to their simple wood frame designs. 11. Detailing – The use of a mansard roof is reflective of the Second Empire (French) architectural style and is not found in this neighborhood. But it appears that the predominate architectural influence is Craftsman Style (which is found in the neighborhood) because of its use of overhangs, wood brackets and mix materials. The design approach of compatible infill should be simple and restrained which this design is not. The metal utility bridges remind one of a 1970’s motel. The shape of four of the third -floor dormers is difficult to read as any style and is not found in the area of influence. It is reminiscent of the façade of The Alamo located in San Antonio, TX. Please visit our neighborhood and see for yourself the adverse impact such a development would have on this fragile little area. We desperately need and deserve the protection that the Little Rock Historic District Local Ordinance was created to provide. Please deny this application. I trust you are all safe and well. Thank you for your time and attention to this letter. Most sincerely yours, Frances M. McSwain 501.944.1126 FRANCES M. McSWAIN * 407 E. 10TH STREET * LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 May 12, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor, City of Little Rock Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Department of Planning and Development, City of Little Rock Brian Minyard, Urban Designer, Department of Planning and Development, City of Little Rock RE: HDC2019-023- Please Deny Dear All: As a property owner and resident in the MacArthur Park Historic District I urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023. Appropriate infill development is welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed for three vacant lots at 10th and Rock Streets does not comply with the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and will forever diminish the District’s historic integrity, character and sense of place. New buildings should be harmonious in form, material, setting and scale within the established District. The zoning for this area is R4-A – Low Density Residential District - which allows for the maximum development of duplex dwellings on each lot. A 15-unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that will disrupt the continuity of the area of influence. The eleven design factors (as outlined in the MacPark Guidelines) are critical components used to preserve the character and architectural heritage of the neighborhood. Below are the design factors and comments as to the proposed project’s compatibility with each factor: 1. Siting - As one of the earliest residential blocks established in Little Rock the 10th and Rock Street area contains a charming mixture of 19th century single-story cottages and larger two- story homes. Two early to mid- 20th century residential buildings are also present in the area. The proposed complex is inconsistent with the prevailing development patterns because the setbacks are too narrow and the buildings cover too much of the site. Typical front setbacks in the area are 20 feet. Most structures also have side and rear yards which enhances their siting and provides a livable feel to the setting. The front setbacks for this development are 5 feet on 10th Street and 6 feet on Rock Street. The complex’s side yard setback is 2 feet on 10th Street and 5 feet on Rock Street. The backyard area is not visible to either 10th or Rock Streets. 2. Height – The exact height of this project is difficult to determine because of a partially- submerged underground parking level which plans read “varies from 9 – 11 feet”. With 35 feet as the maximum height for new construction (measured from lowest finished floor) the real height of the building could well exceed this limit because of the unknown depth of the underground parking level. Any new construction that is taller than 35 feet is out of compliance with the guidelines. 3. Proportion – With the exception of Park Place, the Mid-Century apartments facing Commerce Street, there are no other structures in the area of influence that have the same proportions as this development’s height and width. The prevailing patterns of development in the area are single and two-story residential homes. The siting of Park Place Apartments is quite different from this project because of the wide front setback (26.5 feet) which also opens onto MacArthur Park. 4. Rhythm – This design is not harmonious with the neighborhood and does not reflect the rhythm of the existing historic structures. Many of the homes in the area have interior ceiling heights of 10 feet -14 feet. Although window styles vary, most structures have large windows and deep and spacious front porches that create a graceful feel and invite human interaction with the sidewalk and street. It seems that every effort has been made to maximize residential space within the complex which makes the rhythm of doors, windows, porches, and balconies unlike any other structures in the area of influence. Each of the three floors appear short and squatty when compared to the existing rhythm of the neighboring structures. 5. Scale – The design of the development as it fits into the neighborhood is visually overwhelming and too large for the three lots. The three buildings are within 10-11 feet of each other with hard surfaces on the ground level. A total of six metal utility bridges connect the second and third levels of each building. Metal roof structures span the space between the buildings which ties the buildings together and reads as one large structure. There are certainly no buildings in the area of influence connected by metal bridges and metal roofs. Most of the neighboring structures are surrounding by green space and mature landscaping. Please note the application submission includes only four photographs of structures in the area of influence. These four structures are the largest buildings in the area. There are eight one- story and one-and-a-half story cottages that face the site and are not represented in the application. 6. Massing – The massing of this development is not compatible with the surrounding area. There are no other historic buildings with this volume and magnitude that are as close to the street and have this roof form. Because the three buildings in the complex are joined by metal utility bridges at the second and third floors and spanned by a metal roof structure, the buildings will present to the street as one massive structure. This design does not relate to the massing of any other buildings in the area of influence. Again, please note the lack of photos in the submission showing the surrounding cottages and streetscapes. 7. Entrance Areas – It is unclear from the application how the doors are designed. There are transoms shown in the elevations but not on the entry door cut sheet. Nor is the height, width and material indicated on the cut sheet. The typical entrance areas in the District are enclosed by large and inviting porches with brick or wood columns and railings. The scale of the neighboring structures reflects the high ceilings in the interior entryways whereas the design of these entrance areas appears smaller and less inviting. 8. Wall Areas – Most of the wall areas in this design are a solid three-story vertical face with small porches, doors, overhangs, metal balconies, metal utility bridges and different sizes of single, double, and triple vinyl windows. The windows are vinyl with “wood-like “cornices and trim. It is unknown if the windows are two over two or four over one as the configuration differs on the elevations and the project information. The building on the corner of Rock and 10th Streets is stepped back at the third-floor corner to provide a balcony for the top unit. The railings for the balconies are described as “Decorative Iron Railing” but there are no cut sheets for the product. The exterior walls are finished in a variety of products including brick veneer, stucco and a “limestone like” ceramic tile. Most of the surrounding homes are sided with wood but there are several brick structures. There is a small amount of stucco, no limestone and very little synthetic material. Because of the verticality of the walls, the variety of materials (including vinyl, metal, iron, limestone-like tile, stucco, brick and wood and wood-like projects) the wall areas depicted on this plan are incompatible with the wall areas of the neighboring houses. 9. Roof Areas – The complex’s mansard roof area is unlike any other roof in the area. There are a total of seven sloping dormers on the third floor with metal roofs and parapets. The drawing also indicates metal roof systems covering the utility bridges and connecting the buildings together. There are no metal roof systems on primary structures in this neighborhood. There are no metal dormer roofs and metal roof systems spanning any neighboring buildings. Composition shingles are on the mansard roof of the third floor as well as the second story overhangs and the first-floor porches. The historic structures in the area of influence have hipped or gabled roof structures covered with composition shingles. There are no mansard roof systems on the neighboring structures. 10. Facades - Most of the façade is stucco and brick veneer except for the 10th and Rock Streets corner units that are sheathed with 12-inch x 24-inch “stone like” tile also described as “limestone like”. Most of the neighboring cottages and homes are sided with wood. Brick is used on several of the structures. There is a minimal amount of stucco and no limestone or ceramic tile in the area of influence. Please note 1000 Rock St. is partially covered in Permastone which was popular in the 1930s. It came in veneer panels and was applied over wood siding. Permastone is not a desirable material to emulate in a modern design. The combination of limestone-like ceramic tile, brick veneer, stucco, vinyl windows, metal utility bridges, decorative iron and metal railings, wood brackets, wood-like cornices, metal roofing and composition shingles present a fussy appearance that detracts from the surrounding simple wood and brick structures and is not compatible. Compared to the antebellum Kadel Cottage 1 (c. 1852) and Kadel Cottage 2 (c. 1860) which both stand on 10th Street directly across the street from this project, this design is not only incompatible but is also insulting to their simple wood frame designs. 11. Detailing – The use of a mansard roof is reflective of the Second Empire (French) architectural style and is not found in this neighborhood. But it appears that the predominate architectural influence is Craftsman Style (which is found in the neighborhood) because of its use of overhangs, wood brackets and mix materials. The design approach of compatible infill should be simple and restrained which this design is not. The metal utility bridges remind one of a 1970’s motel. The shape of four of the third -floor dormers is difficult to read as any style and is not found in the area of influence. It is reminiscent of the façade of The Alamo located in San Antonio, TX. Please visit our neighborhood and see for yourself the adverse impact such a development would have on this fragile little area. We desperately need and deserve the protection that the Little Rock Historic District Local Ordinance was created to provide. Please deny this application. I trust you are all safe and well. Thank you for your time and attention to this letter. Most sincerely yours, Frances M. McSwain 501.944.1126 1 Minyard, Brian From:Frances McSwain <missymcswain18@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2020 4:06 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Re: Deadline for Comments Thank you Brian. On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 4:00 PM Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov> wrote: A week before. May 20th at 5:00 pm. Brian From: Frances McSwain [mailto:missymcswain18@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 3:48 PM To: Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov> Subject: Deadline for Comments Hi Brian: I understand from your last email that the deadline for comments re HDC2019-023 is May 27. But when is the deadline for public comments to appear or get counted in your staff report? Thank you, Missy 1 Minyard, Brian From:Susie Taylor <susanmtaylor13@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 12, 2020 4:24 PM To:Minyard, Brian; Mayor; Latimer, Sherri; Malone, Walter; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@rougearch.com; gcollins@littlerock.com; LRzoning Subject:OPPOSED: Please deny HDC2019-023 Development at 10th andRock Streets May 12, 2020 Attention: The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development Hello All, I hope everyone is staying safe and doing the best you can during these difficult times! I wanted to address each of you as a property owner and long-time resident in the MacArthur Park Historic District. I urge each of you and the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023. Appropriate infill development is very welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed at 10th and Rock Streets does not comply with the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and will forever diminish the District’s historic integrity and character of our amazing neighborhood. As Im sure you can agree, new buildings should be harmonious in form, material, setting and scal e within the established District and in keeping with the current R4-A – Low Density Residential District zoning- which allows for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15-unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that will disrupt the continuity of the area of influence. Relative to the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction, we stand OPPOSED to the proposed HDC2019-023 development at Rock and 10th Streets as it is clearly incompatible with nearly ALL of the 11 historic neighborhood design requirements and is incompatible with our current R4-A zoning. Please come visit our special neighborhood and see for yourself the adverse impact such a development would have on this area. I appreciate how the Historic District works hard to protect our amazing old homes from being torn down, now we just ask they take the same thoughtful consideration in what is being built up around them, as well. We desperately need and deserve the protection that the Little Rock Historic District Local Ordinance was created to provide so please do the right thing and deny this application. Thank you so much for your time and attention. Sincerely yours, 2 Susan M. Taylor 904 Rock St. Little Rock, AR 72202 501-240-3234 susanmtaylor13@gmail.com 1 Minyard, Brian From:Latimer, Sherri Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 2:37 PM To:'jimpfei6@aol.com' Cc:Minyard, Brian Subject:RE: 10th and Rock proposal HD 2019-023 Mr. Pfeifer, please know that I am not a commissioner on the Historic District Commission, I do not vote on any matter that comes before the Commission, and I have no influence on the votes of the commissioners. As the attorney who attends the Commission’s meetings it is my duty to ensure the Commission complies with the law. This does not include the interpretation and/or application of the relevant guidelines as they apply to this or any other project. Please know that the Commission staff is cc’d on this email and will add it to the record. Yours truly, Sherri From: jimpfei6@aol.com <jimpfei6@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 2:30 PM To: Latimer, Sherri <slatimer@littlerock.gov> Subject: Fwd: 10th and Rock proposal HD 2019-023 Dear Ms Latimer, This concerns proposal HD 2019-023 10th and Rock development We all should encourage development in our inner city; however, when it comes to our only protected historic districts, we should scrutinize that development carefully. I encourage you to examine with extreme care the thoughtful point-by-point letter regarding this project submitted to on May 12 by Frances McSwain, whose nearly two century old Kadel Cottage faces the proposed over-scaled proposal. This cottage is not just old - it is a symbol of generations of Little Rock commitment to preserving our history. It, along with Villa Marre, were among the very first investments by Ed Cromwell, Peg Smith, James Strawn, Mary Worthen, Gertie Butler, Betty Terry and others who saved our Quapaw Quarter from destruction. Ms. McSwain served for many years as Director of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. Her comments carry extreme credibility and should be taken seriously. My preference is that the City and independent highly experienced preservation architects confer with the owner to achieve a win-win solution. However, I understand that redesign has produced the current proposal which undermines the spirit and the guidelines of the historic district and degrades the valuable historic resources nearby. I urge you to vote no on this misguided proposal. Jim Pfeifer aia 5305 Kavanaugh, Little Rock AR 72223 jimpfei6@aol.com 5012471817 1 Minyard, Brian From:jimpfei6@aol.com Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 2:15 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Re: 10th and Rock proposal HD 2019-023 Dear Mr Minyard, (I hope to send this to all voting parties) This concerns proposal HD 2019-023 10th and Rock development We all should encourage development in our inner city; however, when it comes to our only protected historic districts, we should scrutinize that development carefully. I encourage you to examine with extreme care the thoughtful point-by-point letter regarding this project submitted to on May 12 by Frances McSwain, whose nearly two century old Kadel Cottage faces the proposed over-scaled proposal. This cottage is not just old - it is a symbol of generations of Little Rock commitment to preserving our history. It, along with Villa Marre, were among the very first investments by Ed Cromwell, Peg Smith, James Strawn, Mary Worthen, Gertie Butler, Betty Terry and others who saved Our Quapaw Quarter from destruction. Ms. McSwain served for many years as Director of the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program. Her comments carry extreme credibility and should be taken seriously. My preference is that the City and independent highly experienced preservation architects confer with the owner to achieve a win-win solution. However, I understand that redesign has produced the current proposal which undermines the spirit and the guidelines of the historic district and degrades the valuable historic resources nearby. I urge you to vot e no on this misguided proposal. Jim Pfeifer aia 5305 Kavanaugh, Little Rock AR 72223 jimpfei6@aol.com 5012471817 1 Minyard, Brian From:Ann Ballard Bryan <ann.ballard.bryan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 11:19 AM To:Minyard, Brian; Mayor; Latimer, Sherri; ehendrix2644@gmail.com; Malone, Walter; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Collins, Jackie; peckcapi@gmail.com; LRzoning Subject:HDC2019-023 May 18, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY Dear All, As residents and property owners of a historic home in Downtown Little Rock, I urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023. The proposed infill project at 10th and Rock Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District will greatly diminish the District’s historic integrity, unique character and coveted sense of place. Appropriate infill development is welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed for 3 vacant lots at 10th and Rock Streets does not follow the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and is not in keeping with the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential zoning which allows for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15-unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that does not comply with the size, scale and massing of the surrounding historic neighborhood. New construction should be harmonious in form, materials, setting and scale within the establishe d District. The project’s design elements and building materials are unsympathetic and out of character with the neighboring historic structures and especially insulting to the simple mid-to-late 19th Century and early 20th Century wood frame cottages that face the site. The project application omits photographs of these smaller homes but does included photographs of the largest structures in the area. Nor did the application include photographs of the tree-lined streets and generous green space surrounding the historic housing stock. Thank you for your continual efforts to protect Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District from incompatible alterations and even demolition. Now we ask you to take the same thoughtful consideration when reviewing this infill and support us in our efforts to maintain the unique identity and irreplaceable character of this historic area. PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023. This fragile neighborhood located in the heart of the MacArthur Park Historic District deserves the protection Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District was created to provide. Respectfully yours, 2 Ann Ballard Bryan ann.ballard.bryan@gmail.com 501-519-2002 James W. Bryan, IV jwbryan4@swbell.net 501-374-5396 2009 South Arch Street Little Rock, AR 72206 1 Minyard, Brian From:Minyard, Brian Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 2:39 PM To:'kathy wells' Subject:RE: please reject proposal for Rock & 10th Thanks, received it. Brian Minyard From: kathy wells [mailto:wordsmithlr@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 18, 2020 1:34 PM To: Mayor <mayor@littlerock.gov>; Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov>; Collins, Jackie <JCollins@littlerock.gov> Subject: please reject proposal for Rock & 10th attached is letter. Kathy Wells 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 1:24 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY -----Original Message----- From: Cathy Bozynski [mailto:cathyoboz@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 12:11 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023. This fragile neighborhood located in the heart of the MacArthur Park Historic District deserves the protection Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District was created to provide. Thank you. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:00 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 -----Original Message----- From: Carrie Butler [mailto:cvbutle@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:16 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 May 18, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY Dear All, As a resident, property owner and/or friend of the MacArthur Park Historic District, I urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023 because the proposed development will greatly diminish the District’s historic integrity, unique character and coveted sense of place. Appropriate infill development is welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed for 3 vacant lots at 10th and Rock Streets does not follow the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and is not in keeping with the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential z oning which allows for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15-unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that does not comply with the size, scale and massing of the surrounding historic neighborhood. New construction should be harmonious in form, materials, setting and scale within the established District. The project’s design elements and building materials are unsympathetic and out of character with the neighboring historic structures and especially insulting to the simple mid-to-late 19th Century and early 20th Century wood frame cottages that face the site. The project application omits photographs of these smaller homes but does included photographs of the largest structures in the area. Nor did the application include photographs of the tree-lined streets and generous green space surrounding the historic housing stock. Thank you for your continual efforts to protect Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District from incompatible alterations and even demolition. Now we ask you to take the same thoughtful consideration when reviewing this infill and support us in our efforts to maintain the unique identity and irreplaceable character of this historic area. PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023. This fragile neighborhood located in the heart of the MacArthur Park Historic District deserves the protection Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District was created to provide. Respectfully yours, 2 Carrie Butler 1 Minyard, Brian From:Rob Hodge <rob@hcglawoffice.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:56 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Fwd: I am OPPOSED to HDC2019-023 Development at 10th and Rock Streets Just received this. Best, -REH Rob Hodge Hodge Calhoun Giattina, PLLC 711 W. 3rd St. Little Rock, AR 72201 T: (501) 404-4874 F: (501) 404-4865 rob@hcglawoffice.com ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Danny Cook <danrcook@swbell.net> Date: Tue, May 19, 2020 at 12:18 PM Subject: I am OPPOSED to HDC2019-023 Development at 10th and Rock Streets To: Mayor Frank Scott <mayor@littlerock.gov>, Director David Collins <david.collins@arkansas.gov>, Brian Minyard <bminyard@littlerock.gov>, Director Erma Hendrix <ehendrix2644@gmail.com>, Sherry <slatimer@littlerock.gov>, Walter Malone <wmalone@littlerock.gov>, Christina <caleman@fridayfirm.com>, Lindsey Boerner <lindseymboerner@gmail.com>, Lauren Frederich <lfrederick@hosto.com>, Robert <rob@hcglawoffice.com>, Ted Holder <holderheuvel@yahoo.com>, Amber Jones <ambercj@swbell.net>, Jeremiah <jeremiah@roguearch.com>, Jamie Collins <jcollins@littlerock.gov>, Capi <peckcapi@gmail.com>, Little Rock Zoning <lrzoning@littlerock.gov> Cc: Frances McSwain <missymcswain18@gmail.com>, Ray Wittenberg <rwittenberg@oxfordamerican.org> May 19, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development 2 RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY Dear All, As a former member of the Little Rock Historic District Commission, I know the importance of preserving the overall historic character of the MacArthur Park Historic District through the District’s design factors for new construction, which were put in place in order to conform to the designs of the area’s historic buildings. As a 40 year resident/property owner of one of Little Rock’s historic residential houses within the Governor’s Mansion Historic District, I have seen firsthand how ill conceived land development can diminish the unique character of Little Rock’s historic residential neighborhoods, because of failure to adhere to design guidelines. This proposal is no exception, as it too is ill conceived. The proposed residential complex for the 3 vacant lots facing Rock Street is ill conceived because it does not follow the design factors in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for new construction. For instance, the complex does not conform to the scale and massing of historic residential buildings found in the surrounding historic neighborhood. The placement of the individual buildings on the three lots is inconsistent with the siting design factor. The narrowest parts of all three lots fronts Rock Street. To conform to the historic alignment of houses on such lots in the district, the front of the buildings should be sited toward Rock Street. Two of the proposed buildings are not. In addition, all three buildings straddle property lines instead of being sited within their own individual lot. The two south buildings straddle the same property line. Mr. Heiple states in his March 6, 2020 cover letter the buildings are 3-stories tall. Historically, there were no 3-story residential buildings constructed within the MacArthur Park Historic District. While some residential buildings were 35 feet tall, historically they were only two and one-half stories tall, not three. Mr. Heiple acknowledges the height of the 3-story buildings will have a negative impact for the district, as he states, “the craftsman style design is intended to minimize [emphasis added] the impact of height of the 3-story building.” The fact is, this design feature does not conform to the height design factor of the historic residential buildings found in the surrounding historic neighborhood. Another example of variances to the historic context relates to the design factor for roofs. Unlike the area’s historic residential buildings, what is intended to be the “roofs” of the proposed buildings are a hybrid cross between a roof and a dwelling unit. That is, half roof and half walls. The proposed “roofs” also have balconies, which do not conform to the roof design of the area’s historic residential structures. 3 The use of 5 or in some cases, 8 balconies on one building are also design features that would have not been seen on historic building in the District. The repeated use of the combination of 3 glassed areas for windows and doors on the primary facades was not seen historically in the District. T The use of brick and stucco are design features that are consistent with the materials used historically. However, the use of what is referred to as limestone for primary facades of buildings is not similar to material used traditionally in the District. The photo shows the “limestone” panel to be flat, grained like marble, and uniformly oversized. Perhaps it’s better suited for counter tops. In short, the overall design features of the buildings are intended to relate to each other, not to the historic context of the neighborhood. The proposed development does not conform to the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential zoning requirement, which is for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15-unit residential complex, made up of one 3-unit building and two 6-unit buildings, is not low density and is an intrusion that does not comply with the zoning requirement. One can only conclude the developer is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Preventing this type of land development was the purpose for the new construction regulations. I implore the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023 in order to protect the national treasure that is the MacArthur Park Historic District. Respectfully yours, Dr. Danny R Cook 1700 S. Louisiana St. Little Rock, AR 72206 danrcook@swbell.net 4 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Minyard, Brian From:Collins, Gilbert Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:34 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023 at 10th & Rock St and say NO to rezoning this R4-A area From: Tennille, Grant <gtennille@littlerock.gov> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:20 PM To: Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov> Subject: FW: PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023 at 10th & Rock St and say NO to rezoning this R4-A area From: Susie Taylor <susanmtaylor13@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 1:37 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023 at 10th & Rock St and say NO to rezoning this R4-A area May 20, 2020 Attention all: Hello Everyone, I wanted to address each of you as a property owner and long-time resident in the MacArthur Park Historic District. I urge you and the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023. Appropriate infill development is very welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed at 10th and Rock Streets does not comply with the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and will forever diminish the District’s historic integrity and character of our amazing neighborhood. As I'm sure you can agree, new buildings should be harmonious in form, material, setting and scale within the established District and in keeping with the current R4-A – Low Density Residential District zoning- which allows for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15-unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that will disrupt the continuity of the area of influence. Relative to the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction, we stand OPPOSED to the proposed HDC2019-023 development at Rock and 10th Streets as it is clearly incompatible with nearly ALL of the 11 historic neighborhood design requirements and is incompatible with our current R4-A zoning. Please come visit our special neighborhood and see for yourself the adverse impact such a development would have on this area. I appreciate how the Historic District works hard to protect our amazing old homes, especially from being torn down, now we just ask you take the same thoughtful consideration in what is being built up around them, as well. We desperately need and deserve the protection that the Little Rock Historic District Local Ordinance was created to provide, so please do the right thing and deny this application. Thank you so very much for your time and attention. 2 Sincerely, Susie Dohner 904 Rock St. Little Rock, AR 72202 susandohner@gmail.com 1 Minyard, Brian From:Rachel Patton <rpatton@preservearkansas.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:52 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Opposition to HDC2019-023 Attachments:Preserve AR Letter Opposing HDC2019-023 May20-2020 signed.pdf Hi Brian, Please see my attached letter stating Preserve Arkansas's opposition to HDC2019-023. Thank you! -- Rachel Patton | Executive Director Preserve Arkansas Office: 201 W. Fourth Street | North Little Rock, AR 72114 Mailing: P.O. Box 305 | Little Rock, AR 72203 501-372-4757 | www.PreserveArkansas.org 1 Minyard, Brian From:Laura Sergeant <laurasergeant@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:22 AM To:Mayor; Collins, Jackie; Minyard, Brian; LRzoning; Latimer, Sherri; Director Hendrix; Malone, Walter; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; Theodore Holder; Amber Jones; jeremiah@roguearch.com; peckcapi@gmail.com Cc:Ed Sergeant Subject:HDC2019-023 Attachments:HDC2019-023_Sergeant-20May20.pdf; ATT00001.htm Dear All. Thank you for this opportunity to request you protect the MacArthur Park Historic District by denying the application. Best Regards, Laura and Ed Sergeant 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:59 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC-2019-023 -----Original Message----- From: Peggy Farrell [mailto:pfarrell4550@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:29 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC-2019-023 DENY HDC2019-023. PLEASE. Keep the MacArthur Park Historic District from becoming just a confusing, mixed up mess! This is NOT low density housing. And would tower over the smaller original houses and other structures in the neighborhood. Deny HDC2019-023. Peggy Farrell Life-long Little Rock resident. Sent from my iPad 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:39 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Oppose HDC2019-23 From: Greg Gingerich [mailto:gggingerich@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:07 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Oppose HDC2019-23 Please reject the development HDC2019-23. It is out of character for the neighborhood. Thanks Greg Gingerich Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad 1 Minyard, Brian From:Betti Hamilton <betti-hamilton@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:29 PM To:Minyard, Brian; Mayor; Latimer, Sherri; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; Malone, Walter; caleman@fridayfirm.com; Director Hendrix; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; Ted Holder; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Collins, Jackie; peckcapi@gmail.com; LRzoning Subject:RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development Dear All, As downtown residents, we are particularly concerned about maintaining the historical integrity of our neighborhoods. The Rock Street area is one of the oldest and most attractive parts of historic downtown Little Rock. The development of this 15- unit residential complex as proposed would be a blight to the neighborhood that includes the newly renovated Arkansas Arts Center, the Terry Mansion, and other structures considered to be Little Rock landmarks. Please do not approve the construction of this inappropriate building. Respectfully yours, Lynn and Betti Hamilton 1708 Louisiana St Little Rock, AR 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:37 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Opposed to HDC 2019-023 -----Original Message----- From: Steele Hays [mailto:steelehays@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:12 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Opposed to HDC 2019-023 Hello, I am writing to express opposition to the proposed development at 10th and Rock Streets. It is not consistent with the surrounding historic houses and will harm the character and livability of this immediate area. Any development there should be of an appropriate scale and style and density — but this proposed project does not meet those requirements. Thank you. Steele Hays Sent from my iPhone May 20, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY Dear All, As residents and property owners in the Governor’s Mansion Historic District, and friends of the MacArthur Park Historic District, we urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019- 023 because the proposed development will greatly diminish the District’s historic integrity, unique character and coveted sense of place. Appropriate infill development is welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed for 3 vacant lots at 10th and Rock Streets does not follow the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and is not in keeping with the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential zoning which allows for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15- unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that does not comply with the size, scale and massing of the surrounding historic neighborhood. New construction should be harmonious in form, materials, setting and scale within the established District. The project’s design elements and building materials are unsympathetic and out of character with the neighboring historic structures and especially insulting to the simple mid-to-late 19th Century and early 20th Century wood frame cottages that face the site. The project application omits photographs of these smaller homes but does included photographs of the largest structures in the area. Nor did the application include photographs of the tree-lined streets and generous green space surrounding the historic housing stock. Thank you for your continual efforts to protect Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District from incompatible alterations and even demolition. Now we ask you to take the same thoughtful consideration when reviewing this infill and support us in our efforts to maintain the unique identity and irreplaceable character of this historic area. PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023. This fragile neighborhood located in the heart of the MacArthur Park Historic District deserves the protection Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District was created to provide. Respectfully yours, Laura Sergeant Edward Sergeant, AIA 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:37 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 -----Original Message----- From: LeAnn Holmes [mailto:leholmes61@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:07 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 I am OPPOSED to this ordinance. The preservation of this historic neighborhood is important. Please deny construction Thank you LeAnn Holmes Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Collins, Gilbert Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:37 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Fwd: In-fill Development at corner of Rock and 10th Sts. Begin forwarded message: From: "Tennille, Grant" <gtennille@littlerock.gov> Date: May 20, 2020 at 10:27:35 AM CDT To: "Collins, Gilbert" <gcollins@littlerock.gov> Subject: FW: In-fill Development at corner of Rock and 10th Sts. From: Antoinette Johnson <ajohnsonconsultant@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 3:57 PM To: lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercu@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Mayor <mayor@littlerock.gov>; Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov> Subject: Re: In-fill Development at corner of Rock and 10th Sts. Importance: High May 19, 2020 To: Little Rock Historic District Commissioners From: Dr. Antoinette Johnson Re: In-fill Development at corner of Rock and 10th Sts. Dear 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 deny the proposal for the project at 10th and Rock Streets. The developers current proposal does not reduce the scale, mass and height of this proposed development enough to have it comply with your standards and fit in with the existing historic structures in this historic district. After walking the site and sitting in a presentation from the developer, I strongly believe the project, as proposed, is just too large for this lot and does not take into context its surrounding 2 residential structures. I do believe that a series of smaller-scale multi-family units such as two- story quadriplexes could be a wonderful asset to this community; however, the scale of this proposed structure is too large to compliment even the most diverse buildings in use, style and size of the existing historic buildings within its immediate surroundings. This large of a scale of a structure will overwhelm the existing homes and other buildings. (Yes, I realize that they are trying to “fool the eye” by offering various styles of building sections. But this project still reads as one enormous very tall, block-sized structure.) I encourage you to deny the project as proposed. Again, thank you for your time and energy, Antoinette Johnson, PhD Johnson Consulting: Historic Preservation & Interior Design 501-350-5931 www.johnsondesignconsulting.com 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:47 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 please deny -----Original Message----- From: GAYLE KORDSMEIER [mailto:gkgk55@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:38 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 please deny PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023. This fragile neighborhood located in the heart of the MacArthur Park Historic District deserves the protection Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District was created to provide. Gayle Kordsmeier Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:23 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: 10 St and Rock St Development From: Melissa Laux [mailto:mtlaux@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:16 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: 10 St and Rock St Development I live @ 1015 Rock St and I Oppose HDC2019-023. Toni Laux MTLaux@gmail.com 501-520-8118 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:59 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I OPPOSE HDC2019-023 From: Andy Lehing [mailto:alehing@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:59 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: I OPPOSE HDC2019-023 Dear Zoning Board: Please deny the multi-unit residential complex proposed for the 10th and Rock street location. It's in the long term best interest of the City to preserve what's left of our original neighborhoods for the benefit of future residents. Thank you, Andy Lehing 16 Woodglen Rd. Little Rock, AR 72207 501-529-2718 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:59 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I Oppose HDC2019-023 From: James P Morgan Jr [mailto:jparchaeological@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:47 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: I Oppose HDC2019-023 This development is contrary to the aesthetics of the Mac Park Historic District. This district is an area where many tourists explore on their visit to Little Rock and if this modern multi-unit development is allowed to proceed in present form then it will ruin the districts appeal. There is renewed interest in this area, especially with the new art center, and any new development should compliment the district and not detract from it. A 15 unit structure that does not match the architectural styles of the surrounding structures will be nothing more than an eye sore. Please do not approve this new development in its current form and ensure any new development allowed will fit the aesthetics of the district. James Morgan Archaeologist & General Manager Little Rock Firehouse Hostel and Museum 1 Minyard, Brian From:Cheri Nichols <cgnichols79@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:03 AM To:LRzoning; Mayor; Christina Aleman; Lindsey Boerner; Lauren Frederick; Robert Hodge; Ted Holder; Amber Carter Jones; Jeremiah Russell; Collins, Jackie; Minyard, Brian Cc:Latimer, Sherri; Malone, Walter; Capi Peck Subject:I oppose HDC2019-023 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor of Little Rock Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Urban Designer, Little Rock Department of Planning and Development RE: HDC2019-023 Dear Mayor Scott, Commissioners, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Minyard: I am writing to reiterate my opposition -- previously expressed in an email of December 18, 2019 -- to the proposed infill project at 10th and Rock Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District. Although revisions have been made since December, the proposed development remains out of scale with the area around it. It still is too tall and too wide and contains too many dwelling units in too little space. (As an aside, I hope all HD Commissioners have made a point of visiting the proposed project site because the submittals for the project rather misleadingly include only photos of the largest and least architecturally important buildings adjacent to the site, entirely omitting the several charming one- story historic houses that stand directly across both Rock and 10th Streets.) As a professional historic preservationist who has been involved in issues in the historic district since shortly after it was created in 1981, I am disturbed by what seems to be a trend toward shoehorning large multi-family developments into Little Rock's oldest surviving neighborhood. These developments epitomize exactly what the historic district was created to prevent: major intrusions into the historic fabric that undermine the district's distinctiveness and lead to the irreplaceable loss of the district's aesthetic, cultural, and historic values. Previous large-scale projects constructed in the 500 block of Rock Street and 900 block of Scott Street at least were at the margins of the historic district. The proposed project site at 10th and Rock, however, is in the heart of the district, surrounded by well-maintained one- and two-story historic homes, including the especially important Kadel Cottages at 407 and 417 East 10th Street, both built before the Civil War. (They are two of just a handful of houses in Little Rock that survive from the antebellum period.) The corner of 10th and Rock Streets most certainly is not an appropriate place to build fifteen units on just three lots. (An exception to the one- and two-story scale, of course, is the mid-20th century Park Place apartment building which backs up to the proposed project site. But it is just that: an exception, not the rule. Consequently, it is not the model that should be followed.) It does appear that the revised project design makes an effort to incorporate Craftsman and Mission-style elements. The Craftsman style (but not the Mission style) is found in the historic district, especially in the design of early-20th century fourplexes. If the proposed development also adhered to the scale of those early-20th century apartment buildings, a Craftsman-influenced design could be appropriate. 2 As it is, with the scale of the proposed project so thoroughly incompatible with the surrounding area, I urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission not to approve the project and to make clear that large multi-family developments are not the future of the MacArthur Park Historic District. Sincerely, Cheri Nichols 315 Rock Street, #1303 Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:26 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-23 From: Maggie Powell [mailto:msmaggiepowell@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:25 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-23 I OPPOSE HDC2019-023 Sincerely, Maggie Powell 1201 N Pierce, 41 LR, AR 72207 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:09 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Zoning -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Quinn [mailto:quinn_patricia@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:02 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Zoning I OPPOSE HDC2019-023 Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Rebecca Pekar <beccapek@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:32 PM To:Minyard, Brian; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseyMboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Mayor Subject:RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY May 20,2020 To all considering the 921 Rock St project, My name is Rebecca Pekar. Since moving into our home at 1010 Rock St. in 2000, we’ve seen the amazing downtown and SOMA growth, and the more recent development south of 630. We love old homes and were taken with the unique historic neighborhood right next to downtown. We don’t have the vibe of the core downtown or the more upscale feel of the Governor’s Mansion area. We are a modest NEIGHBORHOOD. As is determined by the current zoning meant to protect us, this complex is totally unsuitable. Please walk the area and consider the homes that will face and surround the proposed project. I find it disturbing that Cumberland Towers and Parkview Towers, which already overpower and weaken the historic district, were used before as justification for this proposal. I don’t believe we have such an urgent need for infill that we settle for something based on maximum profitability rather than compatibility. I really question there is the market for high end condos in our area and am concerned what would become of the property in the future. Please deny this application that we might have the pleasure in the future to consider appropriate infill that will enhance our neighborhood, respect zoning and guidelines, and reflect the area's history. That being said, if it comes to pass that it is approved, I have a few questions/comments. *Where is garbage pickup? With that many units seems like they’d need multiple dumpsters. VERY noisy and takes lots of room. Neighbors won’t like that at 4 am. *Would rather see more simple surface treatments-all brick on lower level, no limestone on corner. Would create a less obtrusive appearance. *Would have been nice if courtyard area could be on outer corner so buildings were set back. Lovely plantings could make it private for tenants and would make the corner a neighborhood attraction and the complex would also be less overwhelming. Seems like tenants might like being further removed from the street also. *Would like to see entry design more in keeping with surrounding porches. Something along lines of friendly central entrance door with sidelights and steps down to sidewalk on main buildings *Actually like the aged warm color of the stucco. Nice. *Think it would be a nice accent if windows were dark color. 2 Sincerely, Rebecca Pekar 501-554-6585 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:38 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC 2019-023 From: Frances Ross [mailto:fmross@ualr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:37 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC 2019-023 Dear Little Rock Zoning, An infill development in a historic neighborhood, such as MacArthur Park, should be planned to complement that neighborhood. It is my understanding that HDC 2019-023 falls short of doing that in multiple ways: design, density, scale, and building materials are a few. The proposed development would be out of character with the MacArthur Park Historic District and should be denied. I urge you to oppose it. Frances Mitchell Ross 1 Minyard, Brian From:Molly <mollysatterfield@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:04 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:MacArthur Park Historic District Wednesday May 20, 2020 Molly Satterfield Westriver Townhouse #5 3404 Cedar Hill Road Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 Dear Brian, A bit of history from your predecessor..........the Little Rock Historic District Commission, property owners, residents and City of Little Rock staff (including me!) worked very hard to accomplish protections and guidelines for our tiny, fragile, very historic neighborhood - long hours, multiple meetings, discussions, research and finally the stamp of approval from the Little Rock City Board and Mayor! The MacArthur Park Historic District was confirmed as the first and only Local Ordinance District, and it contained a fine set of drawings and guidelines to further It’s protection. It had been declared a National Register Historic District In 1977. What an honor for Little Rock! The history of our accomplishment exemplify the enormous benefit of a diligent and dedicated neighborhood working together for a common good. This neighborhood wants development, the neighborhood encourages investment. The Arkansas Art Center is a fabulous ongoing asset, with it’s fresh new and innovative design, it anchors and enhances our city’s MacArthur Park Historic District. Please discourage this application HDC2019-023-please deny. . A denial will allow the developer, the architect and the neighborhood to come together with discussion for our goal of continued enhancement of our MacArthur Park Historic District. A compatible solution for a new and exciting project is possible with communication and community. This proposed project is wrong on many levels - it’s readily evident as one reads through the guideline manual - please refer to that document. Deny this application to give the neighborhood and the developer incentive, time and the opportunity to work together to arrive at a win/win situation for all of us. It is a grand opportunity, let’s please not screw it up with a subpar development, and slap the faces of all who care about the MacArthur Park Historic District and the future of Little Rock. Sincerely, Molly 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:36 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Proposed Rezoning -----Original Message----- From: Tom TULLOS [mailto:tomtullos@icloud.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:35 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Proposed Rezoning I OPPOSE HDC2019-023 Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:38 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: OPPOSING HDC2019-023 From: uncle_bucket@yahoo.com [mailto:uncle_bucket@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:32 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: OPPOSING HDC2019-023 Among the many people who care about historical preservation and reasonableness: I hereby OPPOSE HDC2019-023 may be sent to 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:51 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Zoning From: Shelley Vickers [mailto:shelley530@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 2:45 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Zoning I oppose HDC2019-023 Why in the world would you even consider this? 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:38 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 -----Original Message----- From: Hannah Vogler [mailto:thecolongirl@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:06 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 To whom it may concern: I just now found out about this proposal and am adamantly against it! Although I do not currently live downtown, I came home from the hospital as a baby on Cumberland, visited my grandparents on 9th Street directly across from MacArthur Park, my mom worked at the Arts Center, and my dad and stepmom lived on Scott Street for almost a decade. Between living there, visiting family, playing at the homes of friends, spending recreation time, or frequenting older and newer museums and businesses in the area, I have spent many of my 46 years of life enjoying the beauty and tranquility of the MacArthur Park Historic District. Until the COVID-19 pandemic hit, I drove through the District almost daily on the way to Rockefeller, my daughter’s school. In short, I have spent a lot of time in the District and have a great love for it. And although I believe that new development absolutely has a place in our city, this is NOT the place for it. The design of this project is simply not appropriate for the location, and it is not in line with current zoning or the District guidelines. Please, PLEASE - DENY this application. Thank you, Hannah Vogler Hannah K. Vogler 501-425-2626 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:37 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: no to HDC2019-023 From: Katherine West [mailto:kswestark@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:09 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: no to HDC2019-023 I oppose HDC2019-023. Katherine West 501-240-4745 1 Minyard, Brian From:Ray Wittenberg <rwittenberg@oxfordamerican.org> Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:19 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023. May 14, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY Dear All, As a resident, property owner and/or friend of the MacArthur Park Historic District, I urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023 because the proposed development will greatly diminish the District’s historic integrity, unique character and coveted sense of place. Appropriate infill development is welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed for 3 vacant lots at 10th and Rock Streets does not follow the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and is not in keeping with the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential zoning which allows for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15-unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that does not comply with the size, scale and massing of the surrounding historic neighborhood. New construction should be harmonious in form, materials, setting and scale within the established District. The project’s design elements and building materials are unsympathetic and out of character with the neighboring historic structures and especially insulting to the simple mid-to-late 19 th Century and early 20th Century wood frame cottages that face the site. The project application omits photographs of these smaller homes but does included photographs of the largest structures in the area. Nor did the application include photographs of the tree-lined streets and generous green space surrounding the historic housing stock. Thank you for your continual efforts to protect Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District from incompatible alterations and even demolition. Now we ask you to take the same thoughtful consideration when reviewing this infill and support us in our efforts to maintain the unique identity and irreplaceable character of this historic area. PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023. This fragile neighborhood located in the heart of the MacArthur Park Historic District deserves the protection Little Rock’s only Local Ordinance District was created to provide. Respectfully yours, Ray Wittenberg The Oxford American 501-733-4164 2 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:58 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I Oppose HDC2019-023 From: Melissa Woods [mailto:woodsmrs@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 3:43 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Cc: Melissa Woods <woodsmrs@att.net> Subject: I Oppose HDC2019-023 To Mayor Frank Scott and the Little Rock Historic District Commissioners, I OPPOSE HDC2019-023! Sincerely, Melissa Woods 523 E. 7th Street Little Rock, AR 72202 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:48 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: No to rezoning at 10th & rock Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Ashleigh Almond [mailto:ashleigh.almond@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:36 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: No to rezoning at 10th & rock I'm opposed to HDC2019-23 and rezoning at 10th and rock. Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:46 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Jennifer Burnett [mailto:jennifermichelleburnett85@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:45 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 I am opposed to HDC2019-023 and rezoning! Jennifer Burnett 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:43 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Steele Burrow [mailto:steeleb07@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 5:02 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 I OPPOSE HDC2019-023 As a friend of the MacArthur Park Historic District, I urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023 because the proposed development will substantially diminish the District's unique character. Thank you for your consideration, Steele D. Burrow 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:47 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: NO to HDC2019-23 & Rezoning 10th&Rock Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Harp and Voice [mailto:harpandvoice@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:22 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: NO to HDC2019-23 & Rezoning 10th&Rock DENY HDC2019-023 at 10th and Rock Streets in Little Rock. I am opposed! This 15-unit residential development is designed with a variety of architectural styles and synthetic materials not found in the area. It is incompatible with the neighborhood in its size, scale and massing - it is too big for the site and sits too close to the street. It is not harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood homes - two of which are rare examples of Pre-Civil War cottages. Located in the heart of the MacArthur Park Historic District this complex will diminish the historic character of one of Little Rock's oldest neighborhoods. MacArthur Park Historic District is a local ordinance district. This design does not comply with the ordinance guidelines and/or the zoning. The Historic District Commission can stop this development. Compatible infill for this site can be designed and is welcomed for this location. HDC2019-023 is wrong for this historic neighborhood. AJ Cooney 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:47 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC-2019-023 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Jill Curran [mailto:4currans@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:59 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC-2019-023 To the Zoning Commission, I am writing to voice my opposition to HDC-2019-023 and proposed rezoning at 10th and Rock Streets. I feel strongly our city would be better served with new construction that follows the historic guidelines of the District and requirements currently in place. Thank you for your consideration, and for the work you do for Little Rock. Jill Curran 6209 Kavanaugh Blvd. Little Rock 72207 2 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:50 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Support for Rezoning HDC2019-023 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Rushton Dobbins [mailto:rushtondobbins@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:25 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Support for Rezoning HDC2019-023 Greetings, I wanted to email my support for HDC2019-023 rezoning. I feel Little Rock and especially downtown can be better grown with more developments popping up around town. Living and working downtown I see how new developments are bringing about major change in the city, for the better. I especially support this rezoning for the fact that there is no destruction of a historic building to bring about planned developments. Thank you for reading my support for the rezoning and good luck with passage. Rushton Dobbins 1 Minyard, Brian From:Paul Dodds <paul@dodds.us> Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:25 AM To:Minyard, Brian; Mayor; Latimer, Sherri; Director Hendrix; Malone, Walter; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; Ted Holder; Amber Jones; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Collins, Jackie; peckcapi@gmail.com; LRzoning Subject:I am OPPOSED to HDC2019-023 Development at 10th and Rock Streets Importance:High Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY May 18, 2020 Dear All, As a resident of and investor in historic properties in the fragile part of Little Rock south of the interstate, I am writing to urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023 and, should it get that far, for the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning request from R4-A to PRD. While I generally strongly support infill development in Little Rock’s many vacant lots in its long struggling city center, my sense is that this particular project, as currently configured in the heart of MacArthur Park, will hurt much more than help. It is too large and does not follow the carefully developed guidelines either for the Historic District, or general zoning. Its muddled design seems to be trying to imitate a Boston townhouse development, but does not do it well – and presents a face quite out of keeping with its neighbors. It is too high and too close to the sidewalk. It will completely change the character of the street, presenting an overbearing facade in a style that bears no relation to any of the houses in the area. This project needs basic re-thinking, not just tweaking. While I was not initially convinced that this project would be as out of place as its neighbors feared, on a recent sunset bike ride, I visited the new marina near the East End. I do not know the constraints the builders were under, but was surprised to find a large, expensive development, inexplicably sited to give parking the best 2 views, and apartments only small windows facing the river. I personally did not find the complex attractive, nor its wrought iron attempts to evoke, I suppose it is New Orleans, convincing. It seems an oversized, awkward and contrived effort. Landscaping may soften its flaws, but will not remove them. The designers of that project are the same as for this one, and are proposing comparable mistakes – this time in the middle of an historic neighborhood, rather than on a green field site. The Local Ordinance District was created to provide a framework to screen out incompatible projects, and ensure new development that fits in well with the existing historic fabric. Residential zoning was put in place to protect the environment around citizen’s homes. I urge the City to take to heart its own guidelines, review this proposal for what it is, and kindly request the developer to return with plans more in keeping with the letter and spirit of the City’s carefully thought out rules designed to protect all its neighborhoods, especially ones as worthy of and needing protection as MacArthur Park. Respectfully yours, Paul Dodds Managing Director Urban Frontier, LLC PO BOX 7509 Little Rock, AR 72217 Tel: 501 791 4135 Like us on Facebook at urbanfrontierrentals mailto:paul@dodds.us http://www.urbanfrontier.org http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulddodds Recipient of 2015 Preserve Arkansas Award for Neighborhood Preservation 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:49 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I'm opposed to HDC2019-23 and re-zoning at 10th and Rock Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Amber Estrada [mailto:amber.estrada@att.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:29 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: I'm opposed to HDC2019-23 and re-zoning at 10th and Rock Good evening, I live in the historic Governor’s Mansion District of Little Rock. Within the past few years I’ve watched two new apartment buildings come up just off of south Main, and we lost our Miracle Wash (which was utilized by our community, myself included-and, the man who ran it also lived there, he lost his home in this deal, btw) a few years ago to a large-scale property developer, the lot sat vacant for a couple of years and now it’s being developed into an enormous, unnecessary (and ugly) condo/business building - these new structures destroy the historic integrity of our communities, and there are numerous buildings which already exist which can be utilized as apartments and businesses, as we’ve successfully seen here in SoMa/GMD. Our neighbors in the MacArthur Park Historic District are now facing a similar threat with HDC2019-23. I oppose potential re-zoning at 10th and Rock and I ask that local communities be valued above that of corporate developers’ financial interests. We live here. Please take care of us. I live here for many reasons, one being that it’s not one of the countless new developments in Chenal or other parts of WLR. Keep WLR where it is and let us keep our historic beauty, character, and integrity here - we cannot reclaim it once it’s gone, and only you can protect us and our neighbors. Sincerely, Amber Estrada 1415 Center St. Apt. 1 Little Rock, AR 72202 501-891-1157 Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:46 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC-2019-023 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: KENT GOFF [mailto:arsooner@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 6:54 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC-2019-023 We are opposed to HDC-2019-023 and refining. Melissa and Kent Goff Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:48 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:RE: Do not rezone MacArthur Park! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Barb Hager [mailto:pinkrib@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:46 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Do not rezone MacArthur Park! I oppose rezoning MacArthur Park Historic District! I love the charm of this place! It’s like stepping back in time. Respectfully, Barbara Hager Sent from my iPad 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:49 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I’m opposed to HDC2019-023 and Rezoning Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Len Holton [mailto:lholton@swbell.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:35 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: I’m opposed to HDC2019-023 and Rezoning Dear Historic District Commission members, In good faith people have bought homes in this district based in part on the commercial development protections stipulated by the current zoning. Please do not betray these folks by approving this incompatible development. Thank you. Len and Susan Holton Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:46 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Development Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Holly Hope [mailto:hhope1957@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:40 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Development I am opposed to development at 10th and Rock streets. We have lost so much of our historic fabric to new, unnecessary development. If you don’t have a sense of place you don’t an allegiance to your community and your neighbors. Thank you. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:04 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-23 & rezoning at 10th&Rock From: Heather Iacobacci-Miller [mailto:hriacobacci@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:34 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-23 & rezoning at 10th&Rock This email is to express my concern for HDC2019-23 & rezoning at 10th&Rock and indicate that I am opposed. We need to keep this neighborhood intact rather than continue to build multi-unit buildings that do not promote permanent residency. Heather Iacobacci-Miller 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 10:04 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Please count my vote From: Thaddeus James [mailto:teamjamesdad@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:36 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Please count my vote I live at 2320 Arch Street and I'm OPPOSED to HDC2019-23 & rezoning at 10th & Rock. My understanding is that this is a 15 unit building that is incompatible with the 11 historic design requirements. The current zoning is R4-A which would allow 3 separate single family or duplex construction which we would welcome, but what they have proposed is not in keeping within the current requirements. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Thaddeus James 501-428-2875 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:13 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: 10th and Rock Street From: Kathi Jones [mailto:kathijones@swbell.net] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:57 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Fwd: 10th and Rock Street Begin forwarded message: From: Kathi Jones <kathijones@swbell.net> Subject: 10th and Rock Street Date: May 20, 2020 at 9:01:56 PM CDT To: lrzoning@lttlerock.gov I want to go on record in opposition to the development and rezoning being considered at 10th and Rock. It is critical that we maintain the fabric of our city’s neighborhoods. Kathleen (Kathi) Jones 1604 S. Louisiana Street Little Rock, AR 72206 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:47 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-23 & rezoning Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Linda King [mailto:linda@amberhawke.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:55 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-23 & rezoning I'm opposed to HDC2019-23 & rezoning at 10th&Rock. The lovely old neighborhoods are one of the things I fell in love with when we first moved here. Please don’t let a developer destroy that! Linda King "Life is an opportunity, benefit from it. Life is beauty, admire it. Life is a dream, realize it. Life is a challenge, meet it. Life is a duty, complete it. Life is a game, play it. Life is a promise, fulfill it. Life is sorrow, overcome it. Life is a song, sing it. Life is a struggle, accept it. Life is a tragedy, confront it. Life is an adventure, dare it. Life is luck, make it. Life is life, fight for it." -- Mother Teresa Virus-free. www.avast.com 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:48 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 and Rezoning Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: matt marshall [mailto:mpj.marshall@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:38 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 and Rezoning To whom it may concern, it has recently come to my attention that a developer is attempting to build a 15 unit apartment complex in my neighborhood on the corner of 10th and Rock Street that is currently zoned R-4A. I don't see how a 15 unit apartment building would be able to follow the Historic District guidelines. I'm opposed to HDC2019-023 and Rezoning. Would I be able to get a copy of any filings for this proposed development? Reckless rezoning like this can destroy neighborhoods. Matt Marshall 501-514-4776 mpj.marshall@gmail.com 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:48 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Rezoning Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Hannah McCoy [mailto:hcfmccoy@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 6:18 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Rezoning Good Evening, I am opposed to HDC2019-023 and rezoning at 10th and Rock Street. I the zoning commission can protect our historic neighborhoods for future generations. Thank you, Hannah McCoy 2308 S Summit St, Little Rock, AR 72206 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:46 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: No rezoning Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Nathan McKenna [mailto:mckennanate@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:42 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: No rezoning Hi- I just moved to 10th and rock. My kitten loves to play across the street in that lot, and the large trees are old & beautiful. I’m opposed to HDC2019-023 and rezoning. Thanks, Nathan McKenna 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:45 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: 10th and Rock Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: raonull moye [mailto:celtbox@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:53 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: 10th and Rock Hi: I'm opposed to HDC2019-O23 and rezoning. We need to do everything to preserve our historic districts and the buildings within them. If a building is to be built it must specifically reflect a design the clearly fits in with the neighborhood. Scott Moye 2000 S. Spring Street Little Rock, AR 72206 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:49 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-23 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Charlene Riggs [mailto:charleneariggs@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:36 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-23 On behalf of a fellow 72202 residential owner I am hereby standing opposed to HDC2019-23. There’s enough multi- family and affordable housing in 72202. It would be more beneficial to the city of Little Rock if they would considered investing and improving 72204 or even 72206 with Amazon coming. Ms. Charlene 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:49 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: 10th and Rock St. Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: Debbie Scrivner [mailto:scriv@cablelynx.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:56 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: 10th and Rock St. I'm opposed to HDC2019-023 and rezoning. Please vote no on incompatible development at 10th and Rock St. Debra Scrivner 700 E. 9th St. Unit 9K Little Rock, AR 72202 1 Minyard, Brian From:Minyard, Brian Sent:Friday, May 22, 2020 3:29 PM Subject:communication for 10th and Rock Attachments:communication for HDC2019-023 4-21-2020.pdf Here is the citizen communication for the 10th and Rock project. Brian Minyard, AICP Urban Designer City of Little Rock 723 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 bminyard@littlerock.gov Phone 501-371-4789 Fax 501-399-3435 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Friday, May 22, 2020 7:57 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Opposed to rezoning -----Original Message----- From: jessica hamrick [mailto:hamrick_jessica@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:32 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Opposed to rezoning I’m opposed to HDC2019-23 and rezoning at 10th and Rock. Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Friday, May 22, 2020 7:57 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: From: Nicole Hamrick [mailto:nhamrick1@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:20 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: I’m opposed to HDC2019-23 and rezoning at 10th and Rock. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Friday, May 22, 2020 11:40 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Keep current zoning in place -----Original Message----- From: Libby Woolbright [mailto:libbywoolbright@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, May 22, 2020 11:27 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Keep current zoning in place I’m opposed to HDC2019-23 and rezoning at 10th and Rock, Little Rock, AR I oppose a zoning change in my neighborhood. Please keep the current zoning in place in order to keep our neighborhood quiet and traffic low. Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Matt Pekar <mpekar@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2020 9:00 PM To:LRzoning Cc:Minyard, Brian Subject:statement regarding HDC2019-023 for May 28th meeting Please confirm this has been received. I'd like it entered into the record for the May 28th meeting. === I am writing in opposition to the proposed infill at 10th and Rock, HDC2019-023. The revised plan has improvements from the original but still fails to comply with at least four of the design factors listed in the guidelines for this district. 1) The side yard setbacks for this proposal are not in compliance. Section V of the guideli nes, on page 33 states: "Side Yard setbacks should be within plus or minus 10% of the average side yard setbacks within the area of influence as measured from the property line to the nearest structure. Rear Yard setbacks should be within the limits as prescribed by the zoning regulations having jurisdiction over the subject property" This project does not even have side yards between the multiple lots it will cross and thus is in no way compliant with this design factor. Most of the properties in our neighborhood have generous side yard setbacks. This "megaplex" style of construction is completely at odds with how the rest of the area has been developed. It is the core reason for rejecting this proposal. 2) The site coverage is not in compliance. Section V, page 33 states: "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." The proposed project is surrounded by single family homes with front, side, and rear yards. This project covers the entire horizontal run of multiple lots with no side yards and almost no front yard space. It is utterly non- compliant with this requirement. 3) The tall foundation height is still non-compliant. For a laugh, and to begin to understand the pushback from the neighborhood, look at figure 49 (Section V, pg. 34) of the guidelines. That figure illustrates the degree of compliance that is expected by the guidelines and this project is nowhere near satisfying that. 4) It turns out the fence went _back_ to being non-compliant. How can the fence not be in compliance and this thing still gets a recommendation of approval?? I see my neighbors fence applications shut down all the time but this cheap, ugly, right-on-the-sidewalk four foot fence gets a pass? Where is the consistency? If the grossly out of scale proportions and spacing of this project aren't enough to reject it, at least reject it for the fact that the fence is out of compliance! 2 The whole vibe I get from this is that single family homeowners with historic projects are expected to do everything right, while large-scale commercial developers seeking to profit from the neighborhood can flub as many of the design factors as they want. Immensity should not dictate acceptance. Rejecting this non-compliant project would contribute a lot to building confidence and consistency in this city's laws and proceedings. Matthew Pekar 1017 Cumberland St. Little Rock 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 11:45 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-23 From: Cody McKinney [mailto:mckinney.codya@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 8:45 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-23 I support HDC2019-23 and rezoning at 10th & Rock. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Jill Judy <jillejudy@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 22, 2020 3:31 PM To:Minyard, Brian Cc:Frances McSwain Subject:Re: Proposed development at 10th And Rock Street Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Good Afternoon Brian. After looking at the revised plan for condominiums at the corner of 10th and Rock Street, I, unfortunately must still ask that the proposal for this development be denied. While appropriate infill truly enhances historic neighborhoods and adds to a downtown's vitality, I do not believe our Commission should allow or encourage the size of this project in this location. As I opposed the plan last December, let me reiterate that the proposed new plan has not significantly changed. The project is still three stories tall with minimal setbacks. In my previous e-mail I outlined the inappropriateness of its size. Now let me bring up a new reason for denial. This project faces Rock Street and borders 10th Street. This is one of the quietest and most residential parts of the neighborhood. The residents of the oldest historic housing stock it surrounds must depend on off-street parking, as garages were non existent at the turn of the century. The Victorian property at 401 E 10th Street depends greatly on off-street parking. The Cromwell architectural firm saved this structure in the 1970’s by converting it into a four-flex. There is no backyard for parking as a beautiful Craftsman home facing 10th Street was built in it’s backyard some ninety years ago. Most of my neighbors have similar parking challenges. Parking will certainly be a difficult issue after this large multi-family is built. Most couples that can afford this development will have two cars. This could easily add an additional 15 cars to this area's parking needs. Concern over this sort of redevelopment of Little Rock’s oldest historic district is exactly why the Little Rock Historic Commission was created. To allow such an egregious variance would not only threatens the harmony of our neighborhood, but also undermine all good, but controversial decisions this Commission may need to make in the future. Precedence is a powerful thing. For the good of the MacArthur Park Historic District now, and in the years to come, I respectfully ask the Commission to deny this request. Thank you for the Board’s consideration. Warm Regards, Jill Judy Downtown Dwellings Owner of 401 E 10th Street 501-247-3834 2 On Dec 4, 2019, at 4:17 PM, Jill Judy <jillejudy@gmail.com> wrote: 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 2, 2019, at 5:07 PM, Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov> wrote: All, The Little Rock Historic District Commission agenda is online at https://www.littlerock.gov/for-businesses/planning-and-development/planning- agendas/ 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 bminyard@littlerock.gov Phone 501-371-4789 Fax 501-399-3435 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:49 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Rezoning -----Original Message----- From: Amy Armstrong [mailto:amynore@me.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 11:49 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Rezoning I'm opposed to HDC2019-23 & rezoning at 10th&Rock. Amy R Armstrong Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Dale Pekar <dale.pekar@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 4:23 PM To:caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseyMboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Mayor Scott; LRzoning; Minyard, Brian Subject:Opposition to HDC 2019-023, Infill Multifamily Building at the NE Corner of 10th and Rock The Honorable Members of the Historic District Commission: Please register my opposition to subject proposal for the construction of an 18-unit Condominium at 10th and Rock. In the interest of brevity I will not repeat my previously submitted objections and those raised by Ms. McSwain, Ms. Taylor, Messrs. Pekar, M r. Hoffheimer, Mr. Schoeneman and so many others, but would offer in addition the following reasons. Dale J. Pekar 1010 Rock Little Rock, Arkansas Area residents have a rightful expectation that existing limits on development will be respected. A home purchase is normally the largest investment any American will ever make. People make those purchases mindful of the surrounding area, its existing uses, and the allowable future uses. The three lots involved in this proposal are zoned so as to allow the construction of duplexes. Cramming 18 units on 3 lots zoned for duplexes would degrade neighborhood livability and the area of influence--that's why a change in zoning would be required. Commissioners are not required to allow developers to maximize the profits on their investments. The properties can easily be developed in a manner consistent with the existing zoning. I ask you Commissioners to consider whether you would allow the construction of an 18-unit apartment building or condominium on your own blocks where you live. What would you say if fire or flood or a tornado destroyed three homes on your block, and a developer then came forward wishing to construct an 18-unit building spanning those three lots? Would you just shrug your shoulders and say "OK"? I think not. You would recognize that the character of your block, your neighborhood, your area of influence would be changed adversely. This is the exact situation we residents in the Area of Influence are facing and why we are fighting so hard against it. It is true that the Historic District Commission does not make zoning changes. However, the HDC definitely may consider that a proposal is not consistent with currently allowed zoning and that therefore a change in zoning would be required. Lest there be any confusion to this effect, Sec. 23-120(f) of Appendix G of the Guidelines makes clear that Commissioners are empowered to consider factors other than the eleven enumerated: "(f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d)." [emphasis added] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 2 The Staff Report of May 28, 2020 is misleading in that it makes it appear the no comments regarding this application have been received. "NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application." page 11 of 49 In point of fact, numerous objections were lodged with staff prior to May 28, 2020; indeed prior to the previous Historic District Commission meeting on this proposal. The staff report needs to be redone and all the input received prior to May 28, 2020 needs to be added so that the Commissioners and all other readers are not so misinformed. This would include all public comment received prior to the earlier meeting of the Historic District Commission. This failing is particularly egregious in that public comments submitted to the Commission are not reported in the minutes of HDC meetings. Public comment is being lost to the public record of the meeting and to potential further legal proceedings. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Comparisons of the project to the Cumberland Towers and Park Place "incompatible intrusions" are damning rather than vindicative. The Staff Report repeats comparisons of the project to Cumberland Towers and Park Place (as with regard to proportion and scale). However, Cumberland Towers and Park Place were singled out as being “incompatible intrusions” in the 1976 National Register of Historic Places Inventory --Nomination Form (available at: http://www.arkansaspreservation.com/National-Register- Listings/PDF/PU9768_comb_nr.pdf ) If Cumberland Towers and Park Place are now to become exemplars of allowable construction in the Historic District, then the Historic District should be dissolved as new construction may destroy the very reason for the formation of the Historic District. At the very least, any comparisons to such "incompatible intrusions" should be identified as such. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:49 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: 10th and Rock -----Original Message----- From: Christine Keene [mailto:keene.christine@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 9:48 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: 10th and Rock As someone who lived at 1009 Rock for several years and enjoyed the community, I oppose hdc2019-23 and rezoning at 10th and Rock. I believe it will be a detriment to the neighborhood. Regards, Christine Keene 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 11:38 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: HDC2019-023 @ 10th & Rock From: Rand & Beth Retzloff [mailto:granddesigns@att.net] Sent: Sunday, May 24, 2020 8:39 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: HDC2019-023 @ 10th & Rock I oppose the development and rezoning at 10th & Rock. The 15 unit design is too large and not compatible with MacArthur Park Historic District. Please deny the rezoning request. Rand Retzloff 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 3:03 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:RE: Rock Street In-fill Development From: Stephanie Roberts [mailto:ssroberts031@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 2:12 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Rock Street In-fill Development Good morning. In regards to the Rock Street project in front of the Board this week I thought it might be easier to send my comments as the meeting may be quite full. I think my biggest concern centers around the sheer number of units the developers are attempting to cram onto three lots. Attempting to put this many units on so few lots drives all other concerns; chiefly the size and the monolithic presence of the initial design and the increased traffic and future use of the property. In order to accommodate the number of units, the design of the building on the initial review had virtually no set-back once you factored in the porches and stoops and was almost as tall as the complex behind it. I’m sure one or both of these elements have been addressed but you can’t have this many units and not have a building that is an imposing presence on the street. We are a small neighborhood and a smaller street that is primarily single family homes. And yet we already support two four-plexs, a modest apartment across the street, a large apartment building on the opposite corner on Commerce and 10th, the retirement complex on the corner of commerce/rock and 11th. And then we have the new infill on Scott and 10th not to mention Carolina row on Cumberland, the apartments on 11th and Scott plus the houses that have been turned into multiple rentals. You could argue that any more of these large complexes or rentals would drown out the other diverse elements vital for the neighborhood to thrive and retain the essence that makes it so remarkable. Even though the developers have indicated that their intention is to sell the units and not rent, this is not a guarantee and we have no control over them selling the complex in the future and how the new owners would manage it. And then we have another large potential rental property on our street with a whole new set of issues and worries. Ours is a unique street downtown. I would challenge the committee to find another neighborhood street like ours in all of the MacArthur Park Historic Neighborhood. In the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association, our area (meaning Rock Street, Cumberland, Scott and Commerce from 9th to 6:30) is the last true downtown neighborhood North of 630 and west of 1-30, in my opinion and it's six square blocks and it is a delicate balance that needs to be nurtured. You have to have long term home owners to balance out the transient nature of renters. I am surrounded by neighbors I know and love. People who, over the years, have become friends and family and we are passionate about preserving our oasis downtown. But we depend on the Committee to hear us and help us maintain this balance. I understand the need for infill. I believe in infill. But that doesn’t mean that all infill is good or right for every location. And even though the developers have tried to address many of the concerns the neighborhood raised with the Scott street development, it simply comes down to too much in too little space in my opinion. At 18 units if each unit sold and just held two people, that's 36 more people coming and going, 36 more cars (yes most families have two cars). That is a lot of traffic, a lot of people crammed onto three lots. This is a great project that needs to go someplace else more appropriate. I am certainly not trying to be an architect or designer but there is a structure on 14 th and Louisiana called the Abeles Apartments that has to have 12 units. The units are big and beautiful and there is off street parking and yet you can drive down Louisiana and not even notice it. But I believe this is largely due to the fact that you don’t have so many 2 units crammed into such a small space and the architect was able to design it with an eye to how the structure would affected the space around it and not solely on optimizing square footage. The developers will argue that they have to have this many units to make their money back. And if that’s their argument, fine, but, respectfully, that’s not our problem as home owners and residents. I have lived in my current home for 27 years. It is the first and probably the only house I will ever own. I have fought for and been a member of this neighborhood for all 27 of those years. These developers don’t live on our street. Their children don’t play in our neighborhood. They didn’t fight to close down drug houses and clean up the neighborhood so it would be safer. And once they make their money we will have to deal with the lasting effects of what they are allowed to build on our street. Because they will move on to the next project. But we will still be here. Thank you for your time and consideration Stephanie Roberts Homeowner 1014 Rock Street 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 3:51 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: 10th & Rock -----Original Message----- From: Regena Sanders [mailto:Res39@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2020 3:38 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: 10th & Rock I am opposed to HDC2019-23 and the rezoning requested for 10th & Rock. The requested structure is excessive in size and occupancy for this lot. It will decrease the integrity of a historic neighborhood that has seen continuing improvement in the last decade. It will be adversely impact traffic safety for so many cars to be departing and entering that corner. Such a large construction project will impact the tranquility of this neighborhood, already bearing the inconvenience of the Arts Center construction. Fifteen apartments is way too many units! I am the person who requested that a “cross traffic does not stop” sign be added to the stop signs at this intersection a couple of years ago. Traffic to the Arts Center can be substantial and include tourists. Most drivers were ignoring the stop signs. It was a real danger. This complex will increase that danger again with so many entering/exiting at that intersection plus the normal traffic. For 17 years, I have lived on Rock Street. The neighborhood has improved considerably during that time. Restoration and rejuvenation, all respectful of the area’s character, have added to it’s desirability I look forward to more improvements to a charming, livable historic neighborhood. The proposed project is not an improvement and will damage this area. Please vote against this request. Regena Sanders 1116 Rock Street Little Rock, AR 72202 Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Rosalind Michelle Welch <rosamwelch1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:37 PM To:lrzoning@littkerock.gov Cc:Minyard, Brian Subject:New Construction 10th and Rock Street Does this construction comply with the MacArthur Park Historic Districts requirements? The picture does not look like it should be a part of this neighborhood. Do we need this new construction? We have tons of new apartments already and condominiums. I think a nice historic style single family home would be more appropriate for this space. Is it not already zoned for single family homes? I would not be in favor if rezoning. Michelle Welch 1004 Commerce St Little Rock, AR 72202 501.413.8402 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:46 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: 10th and Rock -----Original Message----- From: Bennie Adams [mailto:bsoadams@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:53 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: 10th and Rock Please spare this lovely, historic neighborhood. This street is important to the neighborhood and this neighbourhood is important to Little Rock. Please. Consider history and the future. Bennie Adams 1 Minyard, Brian From:beverly jones <bevhoodjones@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:30 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Re: 2019-023 Rock Street Development Mr. Minyard I am not sure if my comments are timely and will be considered tomorrow. However, I noted in the Staff Report that Vice Chair Ted Holder stated that there may not be a happy medium...unfortunately. This is so unfortunate because this proposed construction affects all downtown neighborhoods just as much as the bottom line for the developer. I recently was in Virginia and observed on a local channel the Fredericksburg Planning Commission meeting where they had a similar task to approve a development. They were very intense or even more in analyzing all aspects of the proposed development. Every spoke of a wheel must be balanced or it forever wobbles. I urge an approval of a plan that is balanced where everyone wins. Thanks for your consideration, Beverly Hood Jones 2222 S. Gaines Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72206 On Tuesday, May 26, 2020, 10:54:43 AM CDT, Minyard, Brian <bminyard@littlerock.gov> wrote: I can give you a link to look at them online. https://www.littlerock.gov/for-businesses/planning-and- development/planning-agendas?tab=3 click the HDC tab. If you want them us mail, I will need an address. Brian Minyard From: beverly jones [mailto:bevhoodjones@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, May 23, 2020 8:32 AM To: Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov> Subject: 2019-023 Rock Street Development Please forward me by mail if possible the renderings of the proposed development above. Thanks! Beverly Hood Jones 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:46 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: MacArthur Park decision From: Jann Greenland [mailto:jupiter@jannland.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 6:42 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: MacArthur Park decision I'm opposed to HDC2019-23 and rezoning at 10th & Rock Streets. I was a property owner in that area for more than a decade, and I continue to value the historic charm of the area. Our neighborhoods are what make this city great. Please allow only compatible developments in this area. Thank you. Jann Greenland Jann Greenland Greenland Creative, Inc. 501-661-9675 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 1:28 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Opposition to HDC2019-23 From: Christy Langhammer [mailto:twocudas@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 12:52 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Opposition to HDC2019-23 Dear LR Zoning, I'm opposed to HDC2019-23 & rezoning at 10th&Rock. Please preserve the history of our great city. Thank you so much! Sincerely, Christy Langhammer Number Date First Name Last Name City State/Province Country Why is this important to you? 1 5/20/2020 Susie Taylor Little Rock Arkansas United States This neighborhood needs to stay historically complete and all new buildings need to be in compatibility 2 5/20/2020 AJ Cooney Little Rock Arkansas United States I am opposed HDC2019-23 and to rezoning at 10th and Rock. The MacArthur Park neighborhood needs more permanent residents, not structures which don’t comply with historic zoning and are big rental units. 3 5/20/2020 Nathaniel Cooney Little Rock Arkansas United States 4 5/20/2020 Rebecca Dalton Little Rock Arkansas United States I live in the neighborhood and am against resining to allow inappropriate construction not condusive to the historic guidelines. 5 5/20/2020 Sally L Blewett Little Rock Arkansas United States Important to keep the character and charm of the neighborhood. A size and style that is compatible with the surrounding area could be chosen. 6 5/20/2020 Erin Flowers Little Rock Arkansas United States 7 5/20/2020 Drue Patton North Little Rock Arkansas United States 8 5/20/2020 Cheri Nichols Little Rock Arkansas United States The historic residential character of the MacArthur Park Historic District will be ruined if construction of large-scale multi-family developments like this one is allowed. 9 5/20/2020 Amara Yancey Little Rock Arkansas United States 10 5/20/2020 Kathleen Jones Little Rock Arkansas United States I care about maintaining the fabric of this neighborhood. 11 5/20/2020 India Cheairs Little Rock Arkansas United States 12 5/20/2020 Michael Harris Lonoke Arkansas United States I will be moving to the neighborhood soon. We don’t want to lose history in this important neighborhood. 13 5/20/2020 Jeff rice Little Rock Arkansas United States 14 5/20/2020 Diana Beaird Little Rovk Arkansas United States I am a residential properth owner downtown bc of the historic character of the neighborhoods. Other parts of Little Rock have allowed that to get destroyed by this kind of incongruent development. 15 5/20/2020 Nicole Moore Little Rock Arkansas United States The historic residential character of the MacArthur Park Historic District will be ruined if construction of large-scale multi-family developments like this one is allowed. 16 5/20/2020 Sally Burrup Little Rock Arkansas United States Planning and zoning in Little Rock is a disaster. There is no consideration for history or quality of life. The developers have the zoning board by the cohones. 17 5/20/2020 Guy Couch Mayflower Arkansas United States These large rental developments change the aesthetics and feeling of the historic neighborhoods. Please vote no. 18 5/20/2020 Lark Buckingham Little Rock Arkansas United States We have enough apt downtown as well developers trying to live down here right now with AAC upgrades is enough 19 5/20/2020 Stewart McGehee Little rock Arkansas United States I believe in the maintenance of historical preservation and a since of place. This development does not met this objective especially with respect to density. 20 5/20/2020 Ann Ballard Bryan Little Rock Arkansas United States The design is completely incompatible with a designated historic district. 21 5/20/2020 Mary Lewis Little Rock Arkansas United States Let’s preserve the neighborhood history!! 22 5/20/2020 Jan Badeaux Little Rock Arkansas United States Please stop trying to cram these high density developments into these beautiful older established neighborhoods. They don't belong there. 23 5/20/2020 Allyson Peterson Little Rock Arkansas United States 24 5/20/2020 Cindy Lee Owen North Little Rock Arkansas United States Do the best thing you can do! 25 5/20/2020 Courtenay Jackson Little Rock Arkansas United States 26 5/20/2020 Cyndy Taylor NLR Arkansas United States As a lifelong resident of the area, I do not want to see this beautiful neighborhood destroyed for greed, as so many have been. It is a jewel. Once it is gone, we cannot get it back! 27 5/20/2020 Libby Woolbright Little Rock Arkansas United States Please don’t allow this to happen, it will ruin our historic neighborhood. 28 5/20/2020 Terri Stephens Sherwood Arkansas United States 29 5/20/2020 Laura Bryan Little Rock Arkansas United States 30 5/20/2020 Kim Thomey Little Rock Arkansas United States Doesn’t fit the neighborhood 31 5/20/2020 Minnie Fleming Virginia Beach Virginia United States Integrity. 32 5/20/2020 Amy Armstrong Cabot Arkansas United States 33 5/20/2020 James Brown Little Rock Arkansas United States 34 5/20/2020 Brent Stamp Little Rock Arkansas United States 35 5/20/2020 Jan Baker Little Rock Arkansas United States Don’t want to see the architectural integrity of downtown Little Rock destroyed 36 5/20/2020 mary cockrill little rock Arkansas United States because preserving our history is important...maintaining the aesthetics of th neighborhood 37 5/20/2020 Jennah Denney Little rock Arkansas United States 38 5/20/2020 ken lang Toronto Canada 39 5/20/2020 Katharine Adams Little Rock Arkansas United States 40 5/20/2020 Amber Estrada Little Rock Arkansas United States I live in the historic Governor’s Mansion District of Little Rock. Within the past few years I’ve watched two new apartment buildings come up just off of south Main, and we lost our Miracle Wash (which was utilized by our community, myself included-and, the man who ran it also lived there, he lost his home in this deal, btw) a few years ago to a large-scale property developer, the lot sat vacant for a couple of years and now it’s being developed into an enormous, unnecessary (and ugly) condo/business building - these new structures destroy the historic integrity of our communities, and there are numerous buildings which already exist which can be utilized as apartments and businesses, as we’ve successfully seen here in SoMa/GMD. Our neighbors in the MacArthur Park Historic District are now facing a similar threat with HDC2019-23. I oppose potential re- zoning at 10th and Rock and I ask that local communities be valued above that of corporate developers’ financial interests. We live here. Please take care of us. I live here for many reasons, one being that it’s not one of the countless new developments in Chenal or other parts of WLR. Keep WLR where it is and let us keep our historic beauty, character, and integrity here - we cannot reclaim it once it’s gone, and only you can protect us and our neighbors. 41 5/20/2020 Pat Beaird Little Rock Arkansas United States Mov8ng downtown, but more importantly history, character, beauty are all necessary pieces thst comprise the soul of a city. Knowinh where you came from, seeing where you came from, helps define the path you take to where you are going... 42 5/20/2020 Maureen Richmond Little Rock Arkansas United States 43 5/20/2020 Ann Authier Mayflower Arkansas United States 44 5/20/2020 Martin Schenck Clinton Arkansas United States 45 5/21/2020 Scout Simmons Little rock Arkansas United States 46 5/21/2020 Teri Colaianni Little Rock Arkansas United States Preservation! 47 5/21/2020 Jennifer Carman Little Rock Arkansas United States 48 5/21/2020 LaRee Treece Little Rock Arkansas United States We must preserve some of our historic districts there are other places that need this type of business like over by the airport 49 5/21/2020 Stacie Holloway Little Rock Arkansas United States It is important to maintain the integrity of the area and compliance with ordinance guidelines and zoning should be a number one priority 50 5/21/2020 Melissa Goff Little Rock Arkansas United States It’s very important to retain the historic character of the neighborhood. 51 5/21/2020 Rachel Mitchell Little Rock Arkansas United States Every weekend I walk around this area. I love history and I love this historic neighborhood. 52 5/21/2020 Maria Buriani Ferrara Italy 53 5/21/2020 Charles Feild Little Rock Arkansas United States Over building and not compatible with the history of the area 54 5/21/2020 janice miles Little Rock Arkansas United States I have worked for the same company for 35 years that owns the property at 10th& Cumberland and hate to see the historical district restrictions that have been in place for decades be compromised by new construction that does not match the beauty of this area. 55 5/21/2020 Rachel Patton North Little Rock Arkansas United States Infill construction should adhere to design guidelines for the MacArthur Park Historic District, and this proposal does not. Let's not miss an opportunity to have sensitively designed infill construction that enhances the neighborhood. 56 5/21/2020 Susan Bennett Little Rock Arkansas United States 57 5/21/2020 Becky Epperson Little Rock Arkansas United States 58 5/21/2020 Brock Hyland Little Rock Arkansas United States Preserving the MacArthur Park neighborhood is worth the fight. This structure doesn’t match the architecture of the neighborhood. Just going to be another eye sore. 59 5/21/2020 Chelcy Strain Little Rock Arkansas United States Keeping the historical neighborhoods harmonious is an important consideration when building new developments. 60 5/21/2020 Ellen Fennell Little Rock Arkansas United States Proposed development would destroy unique, charming historic character of neighbor hood. Design is a mishmash if styles. Proposed density of development would overwhelm neighborhood with cars and people. 61 5/21/2020 Marsha Stone Little Rock Arkansas United States I live in the Governor’s Mansion Historic District, and realize the value of our old neighborhoods maintaining their historic integrity. I do not want to see an “eyesore†building erected that would destroy the beauty of history at the whim of some financially able developer. 62 5/21/2020 Lorrie Barr Jacksonville Arkansas United States Respect the integrity of the neighborhood. 63 5/21/2020 Carrie Gleason Sedalia Colorado United States 64 5/21/2020 Greg S.Little Rock Arkansas United States Please keep these disposable structures in their native habitat of West Little Rock. We don't need more apartments/condos. No one is moving into Little Rock. These are for people who want to move downtown from another part of town. As a downtown resident, it's important to state that the reason you want to move downtown is that it's not over-run by these McApartments, unlike the rest of Little Rock and NLR. Let's keep it that way. Let the developers go build some piano bar/microbrewery/un-needed retail trifectas out Chenal until their hearts are content - but leave downtown alone. 65 5/21/2020 Laura Sergeant Little Rock Arkansas United States 66 5/21/2020 Joe Joyner Little Rock Arkansas United States I want to see infill development that doesn’t conflict with the character of surrounding historic homes. 67 5/21/2020 Dottie Friedmann Little Rock Arkansas United States 68 5/21/2020 Ray Wittenberg Little Rock Arkansas United States 69 5/21/2020 Pat Highley Little Rock Arkansas United States Grew up in neighborhood 70 5/21/2020 Shelby Cotton Little Rock Arkansas United States 71 5/21/2020 Kim Montgomery Little Rock Arkansas United States We do not need this in a historic district. 72 5/21/2020 Michelle Ketzscher N Little Rock Arkansas United States 73 5/21/2020 Susan Schmidt Fayetteville Arkansas United States 74 5/21/2020 Bill Jennings Little Rock Arkansas United States This neighborhood is one in which I once lived for a time and has always been special to me. The last thing it needs is this sort of development. Please deny HDC2019-023. 75 5/21/2020 brandon brewer little rock Arkansas United States I lived in the neighborhood and raised my kids up on 10th and Rock - i played by the rules made to keep it Original to the era of which it was built... so why would we allow or even think a massive modern looking apartment complex be a good idea.. or allowed - sounds like the City is getting paid off or bribed for this to even be an option !! 76 5/21/2020 Chester Roberson North Little Rock Arkansas United States It’s a historical area. 77 5/21/2020 Grant Brewer Little rock Arkansas United States 78 5/21/2020 Wayne Simpson Little Rock Arkansas United States 79 5/21/2020 Marlena Grunewald Maumelle Arkansas United States 80 5/21/2020 Erin Marks Little Rock Arkansas United States It's a historical area. Leave it alone if not solely for cultural preservation and such. Find a different locale. 81 5/21/2020 Lisa James Little Rock Arkansas United States The greed and money hungry mongers will probly win this small beautiful spot. They suck and have no conscience of life. They will know it on their death bed. 82 5/22/2020 Jamie Jones Little Rock Arkansas United States 83 5/22/2020 Tricia Greer Little Rock Arkansas United States 84 5/22/2020 Anne Holcomb Little Rock Arkansas United States I care about the historic integrity of the area 85 5/23/2020 Capi Peck Little Rock Arkansas United States 86 5/23/2020 Rebecca Engstrom Little Rock Arkansas United States We need to protect the integrity of our historic district. 87 5/23/2020 Rebecca Cowling Little Rock Arkansas United States My Dad was the pastor of Second Baptist Church from 1952 through 1977. I spent hours visiting much older friends who lived in the neighborhood. We had multiple daily tea parties. The best cookie maker was Mrs Terry. I loved her. She was so kind. It didn’t seem to make any difference to her that when my visits began I was not yet 6 years of age. Precious memories of a gentle time. We really must keep our historic places. 88 5/24/2020 Amy Gray Light Little Rock Arkansas United States 89 5/24/2020 DEBORAH ADKINS LITTLE ROCK Arkansas United States PLEASE KEEP THE ORIGHTAL ROCK STREET NAME 90 5/24/2020 Joyce Retzloff Little Rock Arkansas United States Designs that would fit in this historic neighborhood are possible. The materials proposed would not be in keeping with the neighborhood and would be a detriment to the entire district. 91 5/25/2020 Jennifer B Little Rock Arkansas United States 92 5/26/2020 Gail Wood Little Rick Arkansas United States Preserve the history of this area , please. Unique neighborhoods make Little Rock interesting and beautiful. 93 5/26/2020 Antoinette Johnson Little Rock Arkansas United States This is a historic district. The scale of this property will destroy the rhythm of the historic street. It is too large!!!! Put 3 duplexes here instead of you want commercial Real estate or more density in this area. 94 5/26/2020 Molly Satterfield Little rock Arkansas United States Protect future of the MacArthur Park District 95 5/26/2020 Prospect Terrace Apartmen Terrace Little Rock Arkansas United States Prospect Terrace is listed on the National Register of Historic Places........as are many houses in the MacArthur Park Historic District - let’s protect our history! Development needs to ENHANCE, not hurt! 96 5/26/2020 Patricia Quinn Little Rock Arkansas United States 97 5/26/2020 Elizabeth New Little Rock Arkansas United States 98 5/26/2020 Jennifer Gadberry Little Rock Arkansas United States 99 5/26/2020 DeLana Chance Little rock Arkansas United States This building would ruin the rythm of the historic neighborhood 100 5/26/2020 Christopher Jones Little Rock Arkansas United States 101 5/26/2020 Suzanne Penny Little Rock Arkansas United States I own a building in the area on Cumberland and would like any new developments to be compatible with neighborhood. 102 5/26/2020 Monika Garner-Smith Little Rock Arkansas United States Don’t ruin a historic district 103 5/26/2020 Joan Diekman Little Rock Arkansas United States I live in an historic district and would hate to see this happen in my neighborhood. 104 5/26/2020 Derek P Little Rock Arkansas United States There is a way to do this with respect and understanding of the neighbors and the direction of the neighborhood. This would not be helpful. 105 5/26/2020 Courtney Jones Little Rock Arkansas United States 106 5/26/2020 Deborah Borman Little Rock Arkansas United States Neighborhoods are the heart of our lives and the backbone of our communities! Planned design should be preserved and rehabilitated not destroyed with non-conforming structures! 107 5/26/2020 Karen Jones Little Rock Arkansas United States 108 5/26/2020 Brooklynn Hughes LITTLE ROCK Arkansas United States Our city needs these historic places to remind us of our roots. 109 5/26/2020 Barbara Hall Little Rock Arkansas United States 110 5/26/2020 Cindy DeClerk Little Rock Arkansas United States It is important to me that we preserve our historic areas. This includes not spoiling them with indiscriminate building. 111 5/26/2020 Karen Hawkins Little Rock Arkansas United States It’s very important to preserve the integrity of historic districts, for property values and aesthetics. 112 5/26/2020 Heather Chapman-Henry Little rock Arkansas United States 113 5/26/2020 Marnette Trotter Winslow Arkansas United States 114 5/26/2020 Larkin Bryant Little Rock Arkansas United States This development is completely out of synch with this beautiful, historic neighborhood. Anything built at this location should be consistent with the existing neighborhood in both style and scale. 115 5/26/2020 Rachel Miller Little Rock Arkansas United States 116 5/26/2020 Steven Barger Little Rock Arkansas United States I believe there is value in tradition and cohesive aesthetics. 117 5/26/2020 Cindi Maddox Little Rock Arkansas United States 118 5/27/2020 Nicole Crone North Little Rock Arkansas United States 119 5/27/2020 Esther Gordon Little Rock Arkansas United States We need to ensure the integrity our neighborhoods, including the historic areas. Developing every aquare inch of property, destroying the decreasing remaining woods and forests areas, is having huge negative impact on our cities and state. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 7:46 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I oppose HDC2019-023 From: Emily [mailto:ekpennel@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 6:24 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: I oppose HDC2019-023 MacArthur Park has a distinct sense of history and place that should be preserved. New development is great, but it needs to be in line with existing structures. Thank you, Emily Pennel Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:32 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Opposition STATEMENT for HDC2019-023 May 28th meeting -----Original Message----- From: Rebecca Pekar [mailto:beccapek@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:03 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Opposition STATEMENT for HDC2019-023 May 28th meeting Rebecca Pekar Homeowner/ resident 1010 Rock St. II’d like to thank all who have made it possible to express our opposition to this proposed development remotely. The fact that I am not present at this meeting in no way reflects the deep concerns I have. I know neighbors have extensively covered guideline non-conformity and zoning incompatibility so will not go into detail. I do appreciate the developers efforts to make detailing more in keeping with the surrounding dwellings, but really nothing can be done to camouflage the massiveness of the complex. It actually runs continuously almost the entire length of the Rock and 10th street property lines. This totally overpowers our friendly neighborhood and destroys the openness of side and back yards inherent to the current zoning. Zoning that is there to protect us and should not be changed to allow infill designed and constructed with the sole aim of maximum profit. Beyond the appearance of the proposed project I strongly question its viability. I find it hard to believe there is a place in this neighborhood for this type market. The developers have already had to compromise their vision of truly high end units and eliminated amenities to accommodate guidelines. Penthouses and swimming pool have been removed and square footage of units has been reduced. I am concerned what will happen if occupancy isn’t adequate, owners change, or any other circumstances develop that can derail such an undertaking. Would units end up being broken up, the underground parking unmaintained, etc. Any desirability the project has depends on maintenance of the stated upscale feel being promoted by the developer. We have no assurance the current concept will deliver on that high end element. With the impressive growth surrounding McArthur Park Historic District, it doesn’t seem now is the time to compromise our obligation to preserve its character by demanding appropriate infill. Please deny this application. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Wednesday, May 27, 2020 4:47 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: QUESTION concerning HDC2019-023 to be read at May 28th meeting -----Original Message----- From: Rebecca Pekar [mailto:beccapek@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 4:15 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: QUESTION concerning HDC2019-023 to be read at May 28th meeting Rebecca Pekar Homeowner/Resident 1010 Rock St I am finding as I examine the elevation drawings there are details that leave unanswered questions that could blindside us down the line. #1 This question has several elements. If you cannot answer the question at this time then I don’t see how the project could move forward because it would be such an enormous unknown. A major objection I had to the main entrances was the unusual sideways oriented steps and metal railing parallel to facade instead of the prevalent open, friendly, centered steps in the neighborhood. I am wondering if it might be necessary because of the following: The blurb on the 10th St and side elevations stating "EXCAVATE FOR PARKING & SPREAD MATERIAL ON SITE” triggered questions. The lot has a definite slope that I assume will need to be leveled. Something that has been omitted in the elevations is the final height of the graded property. That will have a significant impact on the perceived height of the buildings. The higher the lot becomes the more inappropriate the height of the complex becomes. ****Was the slope so steep in front of the units there wasn’t room to allow for steps down to the sidewalk? If there was room I hope you will consider centered steps more in keeping with the neighborhood ****What will the final height of the site be at the corner of Rock and 10th? ****If it is substantial how will the slope be treated? Will a retaining wall be necessary? #2 2 Right now water runoff is mitigated by the entire lot being able to absorb it. That will reduce to virtually zero. That is a massive amount of runoff to be added to our area system. Is there ay professional assurance that the system can handle it? I know they have to come quite often to clean lines. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Jeremiah Russell <jeremiah@roguearch.com> Sent:Friday, May 29, 2020 8:03 AM To:Dale Pekar; Collins, Gilbert Cc:Mayor Scott; Catherine.Barrier@arkansas.gov; Patricia.Blick@quapaw.com; laurasergeant@sbcglobal.net; Minyard, Brian; rob@hcglawoffice.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jimpfei6@aol.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; caleman@fridayfirm.com; susanmtaylor13@gmail.com; LRzoning; lfrederick@hosto.com Subject:Re: Historic district Commission - May 28th Meeting Mr. Pekar, I’m happy to address your comments and concerns below. We appreciate your interest and participation in the Historic District Commission and hope that you will continue. If anything remains unclear I encourage you to contact City Staff or the City Attorney and they will be happy to provide additional clarification if it is needed. Thank you. Jeremiah Russell, AIA, NCARB Principal Architect To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 300 S Spring Street, Suite 720 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 501.412.4525 www.roguearch.com On May 28, 2020 at 6:13:41 PM, Dale Pekar (dale.pekar@gmail.com) wrote: I realize we're just now getting used to this technology but I feel the need to provide this feedback on the Historic District Commission today. First off, no one ever called me for public input even though I registered to be called to provide input. It’s my understanding that you registered to speak regarding the application which was deferred. If you had wished to speak during public comment portion I believe there should have been a mechanism to do that via the Webex platform. If it did not work properly I recommend you send that information specifically to Brian Minyard, Jamie Collins, and the technical staff so that they can address it. Second, a LOT of the audio was clipped. This likely has more to do with your internet connection than the software. The audio was very good within the chambers even though the vast majority of attendees were remote. Third, it seems that Ms. Frederick has a substantial financial association with the applicant. In such cases, when the Commissioner fails to self-recuse, I think it would be proper to allow discussion and questions by the Commissioners and the public--with the opportunity for a Commissioner to call for a motion of directed recusal. 2 This was discussed in the public hearing, of which you were in attendance. Ms. Frederick disclosed her relationship with the applicant and the City Attorney disclosed that there was no direct financial link to the application and therefore the recusal was at the discretion of Ms. Frederick. If you have further concerns about this I suggest you make it known to the City Attorney whom I’m sure will be happy to help clarify the issue for you. Fourth, I did try communicating with the Chat feature before and during the session with the Host and with other Panelists but got no feedback. Again, if that is the case I recommend letting City staff know about it so that they can address it prior to the next public hearing. We want all citizens to have an opportunity to speak at our public hearings without exception. Fifth, as Ms. McSwain pointed out, a LOT of comments were received prior to distribution of the Staff Report. The statement in the Staff Report needs to be changed as there have been dozens of such prior submissions. You can request a copy of the meeting minutes once they are compiled to verify that the public comments were properly logged. Additionally you can request a copy of all documents pertaining to the public hearing via a FOIA request through the City Attorney’s office. All public comment was distributed to all of the commissioners prior to the public hearing. Sixth, we all want to be nice. We all want to be pleasant. We all want to hold out hope. And we all want to help applicants avoid the additional ~$400 cost associated with a new proposal. But it would be good to flat out state to applicants that their proposal does not meet guideline factors X, Y and Z. And that some Commissioners may think it does not meet factors A, B and C. And that Commissioners may properly vote against a proposal for other reasons as mentioned in the City Ordinance. In such cases, when an applicant still sees fit to make such a proposal, the HDC should entertain a motion to deny the application rather than deferring it. These seemingly perpetual deferrals make a mockery of the process. As a former commissioner, Mr. Pekar, you should know better. The By-Laws clearly state that when the commission has 5 or fewer members present that a deferral is offered to all applicants and that such deferral will not count against them but will be a deferral by the commission, thus avoiding the added expense to the applicant. It is a courtesy offered so that all applicants have the opportunity to present their applications to the full commission when at all possible. Also, as a former commissioner you should know that the guidelines are exactly that - guidelines. They are a framework within which the commission has latitude to review all applications as they are without respect to precedent and in their own unique context. When the application is finally heard by the commission all commissioners will be required to give their reasoning and rationale for approval or denial of the application. These deferrals are unfortunately part of the process, not a mockery of it. If you are truly unhappy with the way the commission operates I would encourage you to lobby the State Legislature to change legislation which governs us. Or at least be part of the process within which we work. ---Dale Dale Pekar On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:03 AM Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov> wrote: Everyone, Below is the event information. I have also attached Webex best practices and tips. 3 Event: Historic District Commission May Meeting Type: Unlisted Event Event address for attendees: https://littlerockgov.webex.com/littlerockgov/onstage/g.php?MTID=e91fb5d54aafd4185ce24460f52ba1faf Date and time: Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:00 pm Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00) Duration: 2 hours Description: Event number: 133 744 1005 Event password: hdc052820 Video Address: 1337441005@littlerockgov.webex.com You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number. Audio conference: To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the event, or call the number below and enter the access code. US Toll +1-415-655-0003 Show all global call-in numbers Access code: 133 744 1005 Sincerely, Jamie Collins, PE | Director City of Little Rock | Planning and Development 723 W. Markham | Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Phone: 501-371-6818 | Fax: 501-399-3435 https://www.littlerock.gov/ 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Friday, May 29, 2020 8:29 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Historic district Commission - May 28th Meeting From: Susie Taylor [mailto:susanmtaylor13@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 6:31 PM To: Dale Pekar <dale.pekar@gmail.com> Cc: Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov>; Catherine.Barrier@arkansas.gov; Patricia.Blick@quapaw.com; jimpfei6@aol.com; laurasergeant@sbcglobal.net; Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov>; lindseyMboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Mayor Scott <mayorscott@littlerock.gov>; LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov>; caleman@fridayfirm.com Subject: Re: Historic district Commission - May 28th Meeting Well said! I couldn't agree more, Dale. On Thu, May 28, 2020, 6:13 PM Dale Pekar <dale.pekar@gmail.com> wrote: I realize we're just now getting used to this technology but I feel the need to provide this feedback on the Historic District Commission today. First off, no one ever called me for public input even though I registered to be called to provide input. Second, a LOT of the audio was clipped. Third, it seems that Ms. Frederick has a substantial financial association with the applicant. In such cases, when the Commissioner fails to self-recuse, I think it would be proper to allow discussion and questions by the Commissioners and the public--with the opportunity for a Commissioner to call for a motion of directed recusal. Fourth, I did try communicating with the Chat feature before and during the session with the Host and with other Panelists but got no feedback. Fifth, as Ms. McSwain pointed out, a LOT of comments were received prior to distribution of the Staff Report. The statement in the Staff Report needs to be changed as there have been dozens of such prior submissions. Sixth, we all want to be nice. We all want to be pleasant. We all want to hold out hope. And we all want to help applicants avoid the additional ~$400 cost associated with a new proposal. But it would be good to flat out state to applicants that their proposal does not meet guideline factors X, Y and Z. And that some Commissioners may think it does not meet factors A, B and C. And that Commissioners may properly vote against a proposal for other reasons as mentioned in the City Ordinance. In such cases, when an applicant still sees fit to make such a proposal, the HDC should entertain a motion to deny the application rather than deferring it. These seemingly perpetual deferrals make a mockery of the process. ---Dale Dale Pekar On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 11:03 AM Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov> wrote: 2 Everyone, Below is the event information. I have also attached Webex best practices and tips. Event: Historic District Commission May Meeting Type: Unlisted Event Event address for attendees: https://littlerockgov.webex.com/littlerockgov/onstage/g.php?MTID=e91fb5d54aafd4185ce24460f52ba1faf Date and time: Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:00 pm Central Daylight Time (Chicago, GMT-05:00) Duration: 2 hours Description: Event number: 133 744 1005 Event password: hdc052820 Video Address: 1337441005@littlerockgov.webex.com You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number. Audio conference: To receive a call back, provide your phone number when you join the event, or call the number below and enter the access code. US Toll +1-415-655-0003 Show all global call-in numbers Access code: 133 744 1005 Sincerely, Jamie Collins, PE | Director City of Little Rock | Planning and Development 723 W. Markham | Little Rock, AR 72201-1334 Phone: 501-371-6818 | Fax: 501-399-3435 https://www.littlerock.gov/ 3 1 Minyard, Brian From:Coleman, Stephen Sent:Thursday, May 28, 2020 8:04 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I stand opposed to hdc2019-23 -----Original Message----- From: Dede King [mailto:d2xs@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 11:59 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: I stand opposed to hdc2019-23 I oppose hdc2019-23 Numbered if from petition phone call received by staff DATE First Name Last Name 18 support address in email City from survey State from survey Why is this important to you? From survey city contact 5/28/2020 Dede King no city contact 5/27/2020 Bennie Adams no city contact 5/27/2020 Jan Greenland no city contact 5/27/2020 Beverly Jones no 2222 S Gaines city contact 5/27/2020 Christy Langhammer no city contact 5/27/2020 Rebecca Pekar 1 no city contact 5/27/2020 Rebecca Pekar 1 no 1010 S Rock city contact 5/27/2020 Emily Penell no city contact 5/26/2020 Amy R Armstrong no city contact 5/26/2020 Christine Keene no 1009 Rock city contact 5/26/2020 cody Mckinney yes city contact 5/26/2020 dale Pekar no 1010 Rock city contact 5/26/2020 Stephanie Roberts no 1014 Rock city contact 5/26/2020 Regina Sanders no 11116 rock St city contact 5/26/2020 Michelle Welch no 1004 Commerce city contact 5/24/2020 Rand Retzloff no city contact 5/23/2020 matt Pekar no 1017 Cumberland city contact 5/22/2020 jessica Hambrick no city contact 5/22/2020 Nicole Hambrick no city contact 5/22/2020 Jill Judy no 401 E 10th city contact 5/22/2020 Libby Woolbright 1 no city contact 5/21/2020 Ashleigh Almond no city contact 5/21/2020 jennifer Burnett no city contact 5/21/2020 Steele Burrow no city contact 5/21/2020 Rushton Dobbins yes city contact 5/21/2020 paul Dodds no city contact 5/21/2020 Amber Estrada 1 no 1415 Center APT 1 city contact 5/21/2020 Melissa and Kent Goff no city contact 5/21/2020 Barbara hager no city contact 5/21/2020 Len and Susan Holton no city contact 5/21/2020 Holly Hope no city contact 5/21/2020 Heather Iacobacci-Miller no city contact 5/21/2020 Thaddeus james no 2320 S Arch city contact 5/21/2020 kathleen Kathi Jones no 1604 S Louisiana city contact 5/21/2020 matt Marshall no city contact 5/21/2020 hannah McCoy no 2308 s Summit city contact 5/21/2020 nathan McKenna no city contact 5/21/2020 Scott Moye mo 2000 s Spring city contact 5/21/2020 charlene Riggs no city contact 5/21/2020 Debra Scrivner no 700 e 9th 9K city contact 5/20/2020 Cathy Bozynski no city contact 5/20/2020 Uncle Bucket no city contact 5/20/2020 AJ Cooney 1 no Numbered if from petition phone call received by staff DATE First Name Last Name 18 support address in email City from survey State from survey Why is this important to you? From survey city contact 5/20/2020 Jill Curran no 6209 Kavanaugh city contact 5/20/2020 rebecca Dalton 1 no 419 E 10th st city contact 5/20/2020 Susie Susan dorhner Taylor 1 no 904 rock city contact 5/20/2020 Greg Gingerich no city contact 5/20/2020 Lynn and Beth Hamilton no 1708 Louisiana city contact 5/20/2020 Steele Hays no city contact 5/20/2020 LeAnn Holmes no city contact 5/20/2020 Linda King no city contact 5/20/2020 Gayle Kordsmeier no city contact 5/20/2020 Melissa Laux no 1015 Rock city contact 5/20/2020 Robin and Harry Loucks no city contact 5/20/2020 James Morgan no Firehouse Hostel city contact 5/20/2020 cheri Nichols 1 no 315 rock St, #1303 city contact 5/20/2020 Rebecca Pekar no 1010 Rock city contact 5/20/2020 maggie Powell no 1201 N Pierce, 41 city contact 5/20/2020 patricia Quinn 1 no city contact 5/20/2020 Frances Mitchell Ross no city contact 5/20/2020 Molly Satterfield 1 no 3304 Ceder Hill Road city contact 5/20/2020 laura and Ed Sergeant no city contact 5/20/2020 Tom Tullos no city contact 5/20/2020 Shellly Vickers no city contact 5/20/2020 hannah Vogler no city contact 5/20/2020 Katherine West no city contact 5/20/2020 Ray Wittenberg 1 no city contact 5/20/2020 Melissa Woods no 523 e 7th city contact 5/20/2020 Preserve Arkansas no city contact 5/20/2020 QQA no city contact 5/19/2020 Carrie Butler no city contact 5/19/2020 Danny Cook no 1700 s Louisiana city contact 5/19/2020 Peggy Farrell no city contact 5/19/2020 Antoinette Johnson 1 no city contact 5/19/2020 Andy Lehing no 16 Woodglen city contact 5/19/2020 Kathy Wells no city contact 5/18/2020 Ann Ballard and James Bryan no 2009 s Arch city contact 5/13/2020 Jim Pfeifer no 5305 Kavanaugh city contact 5/12/2020 Susie Susan dorhner Taylor no city contact 5/12/2020 Frances Missy Mcswain no city contact phone Jake Limberg no city contact phone Marshall Peters questions city contact phone Constance Sarto no 1 5/20/2020 Susie Taylor 1 no Little Rock Arkansas This neighborhood needs to stay historically complete and all new buildings need to be in compatibility Numbered if from petition phone call received by staff DATE First Name Last Name 18 support address in email City from survey State from survey Why is this important to you? From survey 2 5/20/2020 AJ Cooney no Little Rock Arkansas I am opposed HDC2019-23 and to rezoning at 10th and Rock. The MacArthur Park neighborhood needs more permanent residents, not structures which don’t comply with historic zoning and are big rental units. 3 5/20/2020 Nathaniel Cooney no Little Rock Arkansas 4 5/20/2020 Rebecca Dalton no Little Rock Arkansas I live in the neighborhood and am against resining to allow inappropriate construction not condusive to the historic guidelines. 5 5/20/2020 Sally L Blewett no Little Rock Arkansas Important to keep the character and charm of the neighborhood. A size and style that is compatible with the surrounding area could be chosen. 6 5/20/2020 Erin Flowers no Little Rock Arkansas 7 5/20/2020 Drue Patton no North Little Rock Arkansas 8 5/20/2020 Cheri Nichols no Little Rock Arkansas The historic residential character of the MacArthur Park Historic District will be ruined if construction of large-scale multi-family developments like this one is allowed. 9 5/20/2020 Amara Yancey no Little Rock Arkansas 10 5/20/2020 Kathleen Jones no Little Rock Arkansas I care about maintaining the fabric of this neighborhood. 11 5/20/2020 India Cheairs no Little Rock Arkansas 12 5/20/2020 Michael Harris no Lonoke Arkansas I will be moving to the neighborhood soon. We don’t want to lose history in this important neighborhood. 13 5/20/2020 Jeff rice no Little Rock Arkansas 14 5/20/2020 Diana Beaird no Little Rovk Arkansas I am a residential properth owner downtown bc of the historic character of the neighborhoods. Other parts of Little Rock have allowed that to get destroyed by this kind of incongruent development. 15 5/20/2020 Nicole Moore no Little Rock Arkansas The historic residential character of the MacArthur Park Historic District will be ruined if construction of large-scale multi-family developments like this one is allowed. 16 5/20/2020 Sally Burrup no Little Rock Arkansas Planning and zoning in Little Rock is a disaster. There is no consideration for history or quality of life. The developers have the zoning board by the cohones. 17 5/20/2020 Guy Couch no Mayflower Arkansas These large rental developments change the aesthetics and feeling of the historic neighborhoods. Please vote no. 18 5/20/2020 Lark Buckingham no Little Rock Arkansas We have enough apt downtown as well developers trying to live down here right now with AAC upgrades is enough 19 5/20/2020 Stewart McGehee no Little rock Arkansas I believe in the maintenance of historical preservation and a since of place. This development does not met this objective especially with respect to density. 20 5/20/2020 Ann Ballard Bryan 1 no Little Rock Arkansas The design is completely incompatible with a designated historic district. 21 5/20/2020 Mary Lewis no Little Rock Arkansas Let’s preserve the neighborhood history!! Numbered if from petition phone call received by staff DATE First Name Last Name 18 support address in email City from survey State from survey Why is this important to you? From survey 22 5/20/2020 Jan Badeaux no Little Rock Arkansas Please stop trying to cram these high density developments into these beautiful older established neighborhoods. They don't belong there. 23 5/20/2020 Allyson Peterson no Little Rock Arkansas 24 5/20/2020 Cindy Lee Owen no North Little Rock Arkansas Do the best thing you can do! 25 5/20/2020 Courtenay Jackson no Little Rock Arkansas 26 5/20/2020 Cyndy Taylor no NLR Arkansas As a lifelong resident of the area, I do not want to see this beautiful neighborhood destroyed for greed, as so many have been. It is a jewel. Once it is gone, we cannot get it back! 27 5/20/2020 Libby Woolbright no Little Rock Arkansas Please don’t allow this to happen, it will ruin our historic neighborhood. 28 5/20/2020 Terri Stephens no Sherwood Arkansas 29 5/20/2020 Laura Bryan no Little Rock Arkansas 30 5/20/2020 Kim Thomey no Little Rock Arkansas Doesn’t fit the neighborhood 31 5/20/2020 Minnie Fleming no Virginia Beach Virginia Integrity. 32 5/20/2020 Amy Armstrong 1 no Cabot Arkansas 33 5/20/2020 James Brown no Little Rock Arkansas 34 5/20/2020 Brent Stamp no Little Rock Arkansas 35 5/20/2020 Jan Baker no Little Rock Arkansas Don’t want to see the architectural integrity of downtown Little Rock destroyed 36 5/20/2020 mary cockrill no little rock Arkansas because preserving our history is important...maintaining the aesthetics of th neighborhood 37 5/20/2020 Jennah Denney no Little rock Arkansas 38 5/20/2020 ken lang no Toronto 39 5/20/2020 Katharine Adams no Little Rock Arkansas 1 Minyard, Brian From:Herndon, Tim Sent:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:34 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Opposition Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Coleman, Stephen <scoleman@littlerock.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 7:44 AM To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov> Subject: FW: Opposition -----Original Message----- From: Leon Catlett [mailto:lbc@msilodging.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2020 10:04 PM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Opposition HD2019-023 Oppose to this development Sent from my iPhone 1 Minyard, Brian From:Herndon, Tim Sent:Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:34 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: Opposed to HDC2019-23 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Coleman, Stephen <scoleman@littlerock.gov> Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 11:32 AM To: Herndon, Tim <therndon@littlerock.gov> Subject: FW: Opposed to HDC2019-23 -----Original Message----- From: Hannah McCoy [mailto:hcfmccoy@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2020 8:46 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Subject: Opposed to HDC2019-23 I'm opposed to HDC2019-23 & rezoning at 10th & Rock. The LRzoning and LRHDC should only allow for compatible developments in this area as promised when originated. Hannah McCoy 2308 S Summit Street Little Rock, AR 72206 1 Minyard, Brian From:Rachel Rouby Yurek <rachel.yurek@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 13, 2020 8:10 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Proposed development in MacArthur Park Historic District To the members of the Little Rock Historic District Commission, When both a former Deputy State Historic Preservation officer AND the Quapaw Quarter Association oppose a development as being out of sync with a historical district's character, it would behoove the City to listen to them! I oppose the planned development at 10th and Rock, and I am deeply troubled that a commissioner with a professional relationship with the developer has not recused herself from voting on the matter. That is inexcusable as well as unethical. Thank you, Rachel Rouby Yurek Sent from my iPad 1 Minyard, Brian From:Matt Pekar <mpekar@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 13, 2020 10:40 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:writing in opposition of item HDC19-023 at 921 Rock Street for July hearing Brian is there a hearing coming up, and is this still the file number for the proposed project at 10th and Rock? If so, I'd like to re-submit my comments from last hearing as I don't believe the applicant has modified the plan at all. ---- I am writing in opposition to the proposed infill at 10th and Rock, HDC2019-023. The revised plan has improvements from the original but still fails to comply with at least four of the design factors listed in the guidelines for this district. 1) The side yard setbacks for this proposal are not in compliance. Section V of the guidelines, on page 33 states: "Side Yard setbacks should be within plus or minus 10% of the average side yard setbacks within the area of influence as measured from the property line to the nearest structure. Rear Yard setbacks should be within the limits as prescribed by the zoning regulations having jurisdiction over the subject property" This project does not even have side yards between the multiple lots it will cross and thus is in no way compliant with this design factor. Most of the properties in our neighborhood have generous side yard setbacks. This "megaplex" style of construction is completely at odds with how the rest of the area has been developed. It is the core reason for rejecting this proposal. 2) The site coverage is not in compliance. Section V, page 33 states: "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." The proposed project is surrounded by single family homes with front, side, and rear yards. This project covers the entire horizontal run of multiple lots with no side yards and almost no front yard space. It is utterly non- compliant with this requirement. 3) The tall foundation height is still non-compliant. For a laugh, and to begin to understand the pushback from the neighborhood, look at figure 49 (Section V, pg. 34) of the guidelines. That figure illustrates the degree of compliance that is expected by the guidelines and this project is nowhere near satisfying that. 4) It turns out the fence went _back_ to being non-compliant. How can the fence not be in compliance and this thing still gets a recommendation of approval?? I see my neighbors fence applications shut down all the time but this cheap, ugly, right-on-the-sidewalk four foot fence gets a pass? Where is the consistency? If the grossly out of scale proportions and spacing of this project aren't enough to reject it, at least reject it for the fact that the fence is out of compliance! 2 The whole vibe I get from this is that single family homeowners with historic projects are expected to do everything right, while large-scale commercial developers seeking to profit from the neighborhood can flub as many of the design factors as they want. Immensity should not dictate acceptance. Rejecting this non-compliant project would contribute a lot to building confidence and consistency in this city's laws and proceedings. Matthew Pekar 1017 Cumberland St. Little Rock 1 Minyard, Brian From:JIM PFEIFER <jimpfei6@aol.com> Sent:Monday, July 13, 2020 7:07 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:10th and Rock I support the Quapaw Quarter Association’s determination that the 10th and Rock proposal does not meet the historic district guidelines and ask commissioners to vote no. My preference is that the Commission and staff work with the developer, architect and neighborhood to build a consensus. Im grateful to the developer for wanting to invest in the city; however, so many people have worked to establish our only district. (Atlanta has dozens) that we need to follow the rules and protect it. I am also very disappointed that one commissioner refused to recuse after admitting she does business with the developer and architect. Jim Pfeifer aia Little Rock 1 Minyard, Brian From:kathy wells <wordsmithlr@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 13, 2020 10:37 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:oppose Rock & 10th proposal harms overall values. incompatible design to neighbors. owner of 4plex at 1015 S. scott St. kathy wells 1 Minyard, Brian From:Tommy Jameson <tommy@jamesonarchitects.com> Sent:Monday, July 13, 2020 5:17 PM To:Minyard, Brian; Mayor; Christina E. Aleman; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; Lauren Frederick; rob@hcglawoffice.com; Theodore Holder; Amber Carter Jones; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Collins, Jackie Subject:HDC2019-023 Project at 10th and Rock Attachments:HDC 7.13.20.pdf Please see attached letter, thank you. Tommy Jameson, AIA JAMESON Architects PA 300 Pulaski Street Little Rock, AR 72201 501-666-6600 JAMESON A R C H I T E C T S P. A. 3 0 0 P U L A S K I S T R E E T L I T T L E R O C K , A R K A N S A S 7 2 2 0 1 5 0 1 – 6 6 6 – 6 6 0 0 t o m m y @ j a m e s o n a r c h i t e c t s . c o m July 13,2020 Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development Re: HDC2019-023 10th and Rock Dear Mayor Scott, Commissioners, Mr. Collins and Mr. Minyard: I am writing to express my opposition and to encourage denial of the proposed infill project at 10th and Rock Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District. I am writing from the perspective of a former historic district commissioner, a former Capitol Zoning District Commissioner, a former QQA board member, former board member and president of Preserve Arkansas, and as an architect with a practice focused on historic preservation for the last 41 years. The proposed project is too large, too close to the street, too tall, too dense and inadequately designed to have a positive effect on this less than ¼ block site in the heart of the historic district. It negatively alters the rhythm, scale and massing of the two blocks it faces. The current zoning would allow for up to 6 dwelling units is fairly dense. The proposed development creates 2.5 times that density. Imagine the traffic generated by 30 cars coming and going from below grade parking – via a one lane access ramp on a quiet historic district side street! Well-designed infill projects have the potential to enhance historic neighborhoods when they are well conceived and implemented. But infill projects also have the potential to leave a near permanent negative scar when not well done, likely lowering property values and causing conflict. I believe this project, as currently presented, fits the latter category. Over its nearly 40 years of existence the MacArthur Park Historic District has been a success story. Our oldest historic neighborhood is something Little Rock is and should be proud of. Please don’t make the mistake of approving this project that will have a negative effect for the next 40+ years. We can do better! Sincerely, Tommy Jameson, AIA 1 Minyard, Brian From:Amber Jones <ambercj@swbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 9:44 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Fw: Opposing the 10th & Rock infill Proposal ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Welch-Blair, Sharon <sharonbwelch@eaglestrategies.com> To: holderheuvel@yahoo.com <holderheuvel@yahoo.com>; lindseymboerner@gmail.com <lindseymboerner@gmail.com>; lfrederick@hosto.com <lfrederick@hosto.com>; rob@hcglawoffice.com <rob@hcglawoffice.com>; ambercj@swbell.net <ambercj@swbell.net>; jeremiah@roguearch.com <jeremiah@roguearch.com>; gcollins@littlerock.gov <gcollins@littlerock.gov>; peckcapi@gmail.com <peckcapi@gmail.com>; lrzoning@littlerock.gov <lrzoning@littlerock.gov> Cc: rhblair@swbell.net <rhblair@swbell.net>; Jill Elaine Judy (jillandmarkbrown@yahoo.com) <jillandmarkbrown@yahoo.com>; Frances McSwain <missymcswain18@gmail.com>; Boyd Maher (Boyd.Maher@arkansas.gov) <boyd.maher@arkansas.gov> Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 06:58:29 PM CDT Subject: Opposing the 10th & Rock infill Proposal All: With the greatest respect, I want to add my name to the list of folks opposing the 10 th & Rock infill currently being proposed. I certainly concur with Tommy Jameson’s remarks. And I’m frustrated that we continue to see inappropriate infill proposals approved throughout the historic districts. The original mission statements and intent of those statements was that any infill properties should be appropriate by recognizable standards of the Victorian, Queen Anne, Colonial Revival, Cape Code, Neoclassical, Tudor Revival. French Revival and Craftsman. Not structures that often look like trailer houses on foundations sitting right next to a beautiful late Victorian house as we see by the “baby doll” house. Yet this is what we continue to see because our property is cheaper downtown and because we are an electric and diverse group that has not pushed to oppose the minor changes that keep chipping away at our “historic” resolve. It is certainly appropriate we are inviting good infill. It is not appropriate that we are willy nilly allowing our standards to be chipped away in the name of progress. The whole Paris Towers issue is a perfect example of this debacle, a total disgrace! That building is not worthy of being designated an historic building. It is devoid of striking features and looks like a Russian 2 gulag!! But because it will make a developer rich by using state and federal tax credits, and bring “progressive growth” to the area, some people in government and in the historic district are willing to ignore pertinent facts about senior housing that other states and cities have already conceded to, and divest themselves of their principals rather than look for better options for those they serve. The shady underhanded dealings that with went along with that issue will not be swept under the rug. Nor forgotten! I encourage you to pull out those original mission statements; read them and apply them while we still have the majority of our historic neighborhoods intact. We all want GOOD infill. We do not want something to be ashamed of in the name or progress. We had enough of that in the 50’s and 60’s for several lifetimes!! With the greatest respect for what you do and the time you give, Sharon Welch-Blair Sharon Welch-Blair,CLU©, ChFC©,www.EmpireFinancialArchitects.com EMPIRE FINANCIAL ARCHITECTS "BUILDING THE EMPIRE; SAVING THE LEGACY" Financial Adviser-Eagle Strategies Corp* 501-375-1701 fax:501-375-4537 1620 Main Street Little Rock, AR 72206 Financial Advisor offering investment advisory services through Eagle Strategies, LLC, a Registered Investment Advisor. Member Agent. Registered Representative offering securities through NYLIFE Securities LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. Empire Financial Architects is not owned or operated by Eagle Stategies, LLC, or its affiliates. If you do not wish to receive e-mail communications from Eagle Strategies, LLC and/or Empire Financial Architects, please reply to this e-mail, using the words "Opt out" in the subject line. Please copy the e-mail to email_optout@newyorklife.com, and mail to Eagle Strategies, LLC 51 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10010. 3 1 Minyard, Brian From:Malone, Walter Sent:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 4:26 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I am OPPOSED to HDC2019-023 Development at 10th and Rock Streets fyi From: Danny Cook [mailto:danrcook@swbell.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:24 PM To: Mayor <mayor@littlerock.gov>; David Collins <david.collins@arkansas.gov>; Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov>; Director Erma Hendrix <ehendrix2644@gmail.com>; Latimer, Sherri <slatimer@littlerock.gov>; Malone, Walter <WMalone@littlerock.gov>; Christina <caleman@fridayfirm.com>; Lindsey Boerner <lindseymboerner@gmail.com>; Lauren Frederich <lfrederick@hosto.com>; Robert <rob@hcglawoffice.com>; Ted Holder <holderheuvel@yahoo.com>; Amber Jones <ambercj@gmail.com>; Jeremiah <jeremiah@roguearch.com>; Collins, Jackie <JCollins@littlerock.gov>; Capi <peckcapi@gmail.com>; LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov> Cc: Frances McSwain <missymcswain18@gmail.com>; Ray Wittenberg <rwittenberg@oxfordamerican.org> Subject: FW: I am OPPOSED to HDC2019-023 Development at 10th and Rock Streets July 14, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY Dear All, Reminder of why I am opposed to HDC2019-203 development at 10 th and Rock Streets. As a former member of the Little Rock Historic District Commission, I know the importance of preserving the overall historic character of the MacArthur Park Historic District through the District’s design factors for new construction, which were put in place in order to conform to the designs of the area’s historic buildings. As a 40 year resident/property owner of one of Little Rock’s historic residential houses within the Governor’s Mansion Historic District, I have seen firsthand how ill conceived land development can diminish the unique character of Little Rock’s historic residential neighborhoods, because of failure to adhere to design guidelines. This proposal is no exception, as it too is ill conceived. The proposed residential complex for the 3 vacant lots facing Rock Street is ill conceived because it does not follow the design factors in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for new construction. For instance, the complex does not conform to the scale and massing of historic residential buildings found in the surrounding historic neighborhood. 2 The placement of the individual buildings on the three lots is inconsistent with the siting design factor. The narrowest parts of all three lots fronts Rock Street. To conform to the historic alignment of houses on such lots in the district, the front of the buildings should be sited toward Rock Street. Two of the proposed buildings are not. In addition, all three buildings straddle property lines instead of being sited within their own individual lot. The two south buildings straddle the same property line. Mr. Heiple states in his March 6, 2020 cover letter the buildings are 3-stories tall. Historically, there were no 3-story residential buildings constructed within the MacArthur Park Historic District. While some residential buildings were 35 feet tall, historically they were only two and one-half stories tall, not three. Mr. Heiple acknowledges the height of the 3-story buildings will have a negative impact for the district, as he states, “the craftsman style design is intended to minimize [emphasis added] the impact of height of the 3-story building.” The fact is, this design feature does not conform to the height design factor of the historic residential buildings found in the surrounding historic neighborhood. Another example of variances to the historic context relates to the design factor for roofs. Unlike the area’s historic residential buildings, what is intended to be the “roofs” of the proposed buildings are a hybrid cross between a roof and a dwelling unit. That is, half roof and half walls. The proposed “roofs” also have balconies, which do not conform to the roof design of the area’s historic residential structures. The use of 5 or in some cases, 8 balconies on one building are also design features that would have not been seen on historic building in the District. The repeated use of the combination of 3 glassed areas for windows and doors on the primary facades was not seen historically in the District. The use of brick and stucco are design features that are consistent with the materials used historically. However, the use of what is referred to as limestone for primary facades of buildings is not similar to material used traditionally in the District. The photo shows the “limestone” panel to be flat, grained like marble, and uniformly oversized. Perhaps it’s better suited for counter tops. In short, the overall design features of the buildings are intended to relate to each other, not to the historic context of the neighborhood. The proposed development does not conform to the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential zoning requirement, which is for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15-unit residential complex, made up of one 3-unit building and two 6-unit buildings, is not low density and is an intrusion that does not comply with the zoning requirement. One can only conclude the developer is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Preventing this type of land development was the purpose for the new construction regulations. I implore the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023 in order to protect the national treasure that is the MacArthur Park Historic District. Respectfully yours, Dr. Danny R Cook 1700 S. Louisiana St. Little Rock, AR 72206 danrcook@swbell.net 3 Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1 Minyard, Brian From:Jane Green <jane-green@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 7:42 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:Development at 10th and Rock Good morning Brian What a terrible shame to add yet another modern building to the historic downtown area. In the last several years we have seen new apartments on Scott, Rock and Main Streets, while there are multiple listings for vacant apartments all over the Quapaw area. Do we really need more apartments? That area of Rock Street is truly one of the last iconic American neighborhoods with beautiful old homes and trees, and is truly a place where you can know all your neighbors. I vote no! By the way, do you know what’s happening with the vacant lot at the corner of Rock and 10th? The house was demolished more that a year ago and the lot sits empty. Might it be for sale? Hope you are well and staying safe. Jane Green 624 Ferry St 1 Minyard, Brian From:Marnette Trotter <mwt2nd@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 9:56 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:OPPOSING Proposed Developmet at 10th and Rock I oppose the proposed development at 10th and Rock, Sincerely, Marnette Trotter 1 Minyard, Brian From:REBECCA DALTON <daltonrgcr@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 8:18 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:oppose HDC2019-023 I oppose HDC2019-023 -- 1 Minyard, Brian From:Ann Ballard Bryan <ann.ballard.bryan@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:41 PM To:Mayor; Minyard, Brian; Latimer, Sherri; Director Hendrix; Malone, Walter; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Collins, Gilbert; peckcapi@gmail.com; LRzoning Subject:HDC2019-023 Attachments:10th & Rock.pdf; ATT00001.htm Please see that attached letter in opposition to HDC2019-023. July 15, 2020 Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development Re: HDC2019-023 10th and Rock Dear Mayor Scott, Commissioners, Mr. Collins and Mr. Minyard: I am writing to express my opposition to and encourage denial of the proposed development at 10th and Rock Streets, HDC2019-023, in the McArthur Park Historic District. I am writing as a collegiate instructor of Historic Preservation with 25 years of experience in the field. Good architecture should always respond to the local context. The proposed infill project at 10th and Rock Streets is completely out of context by being out of compliance with the guidelines of the McArthur Park Historic District. It is too large, too tall, too dense, too poorly designed as to period, and too close to the street. The McArthur Park Historic District is a gem in the heart of downtown. A well designed infill project would be a welcomed addition to this historic neighborhood which holds some of Little Rock’s oldest structures. Unfortunately, this proposal would have a permanent negative impact to the neighborhood and to Little Rock. Please help keep Little Rock’s historic districts intact by denying this application. Sincerely yours, Ann Ballard Bryan 2009 South Arch Street Little Rock, AR 72206 501-519-2002 ann.ballard.bryan@gmail.com FROM THE DESK OF Ann Ballard Bryan 2009 SOUTH ARCH STREET, LITTLE ROCK, AR 72206 501-519-2002 ANN.BALLARD.BRYAN@GMAIL.COM 1 Minyard, Brian From:J. Carman Inc. Fine Art Advisory <jcarmaninc@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 10:44 AM To:Minyard, Brian Cc:caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Mayor Subject:HDC Comments, 10th & Rock Street Good afternoon, Brian Minyard and Fellow Historic District Commissioners,, Please note that I have tried to send this message out based on the members who are published on the city's website. If I have missed any relevant parties, please forward to them. I wanted to weigh-in for a third time on the proposed infill development at 10th and Rock Streets. The longer I have time to ponder this application, the more I am befuddled as to why it wasn't denied or discouraged at staff-level. As a former Historic District Commissioner and as a person who has grappled with developing appropriate infill for the district among my own personal rehabilitation projects, this proposal is simply not compatible with the spirit of the type of infill that the guidelines and zoning suggest. Period. This applicant isn't asking for one exception or even two or even three. Their proposal pushes the boundaries of suggested guidelines by virtually any measure. If this application moves forward, it will effectively rewrite the spirit of the guidelines that have made our district a success. Leading organizations like the QQA and nationally-respected preservationists such as architect Tommy Jameson have spoken out against this application in its current form. Countless citizens who live or work in the district have spoken out against it. Please see fit to deny this application. I, like many citizens, am eager to see that site developed, but would implore you to make sure that it is done so in accordance with the guidelines and best-practices. In 2022 we are going to witness the grand opening of the "re-imagined" Arkansas Arts Center. Let's hope that the tens of thousands of visitors from around the country that come to its doors also see a "reimagined" version of this application that demonstrates our city's commitment to the integrity of our historic district. Below are some other comments from my last letter that explain some of my concerns. Respectfully, Jennifer Carman Former Historic District Commissioner and Owner of Two Properties Near 10th & Rock ------- 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 continue to have concerns about the project as it is currently proposed. I have been following the various proposals of this infill and have visited the location many times. 2 In short, I continue to feel that this building seems unnecessarily huge, and I am concerned about its minimal setback, overwhelming height, and generous mass/scale. I realize the applicant has made changes to their proposal, but it still seems that 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. Moreover, as a former commissioner, I understand the district's published guidelines for new construction, and it seems that this is NOT in keeping with the area's R4-A Low Density Residential Zoning. Simply put, a 15 unit complex isn't low density and isn't in compliance with the scale and massing of the surrounding historic properties. 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. Also, 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. I could go on about design elements that seem out of keeping or concerns I have about the setback, but I think the reality here is that one thing that I keep coming back to is the fact that the guidelines encourage the applicant to demonstrate "sympathy to the proportions, rhythms, and scale of the prevailing patterns of development within the immediate surroundings of the subject property." In this case, despite the efforts to revise the plan, I simply don't believe they've achieved this critical goal of infill development. It feels a bit like trying to force a square peg in a round hole. 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 o rdinance historic district is arguably a very special location where the most care and diligence is warranted. I believe that this project, as currently proposed, would be a very sizable distraction from the appreciation of the surrounding homes and working class cottages. 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. It is my hope that you will deny HDC2019-023, thus protecting the integrity and character of our historic structures and the neighborhood that has been their home for a century and a half. Thank you for considering my comments. Respectfully, Jennifer Carman Jennifer Carman, ASA J. CARMAN, Inc. Fine Art Advisory Accredited Senior Appraiser: American Society of Appraisers Accredited Member: Appraisers Association of America Accredited Member: International Society of Appraisers IRS Qualified Appraiser 501.744.8049 www.AppraisingFineArt.com Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/littlerockappraiser Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/appraisingfineart Pinterest: http://pinterest.com/artappraiser 3 *** This message (including any attachments) contains CONFIDENTIAL information intended for a specific individual, and is protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, you should notify the sender immediately and delete this message. Any disclosure or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Malone, Walter Sent:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 7:04 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: 921 Rock Street HDC2019-023, NE corner of 10th and Rock, Briggs 15-unit condo fyi From: Dale Pekar [mailto:dale.pekar@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 9:28 PM To: Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov>; Latimer, Sherri <slatimer@littlerock.gov>; Director Hendrix <ehendrix2644@att.net>; Malone, Walter <WMalone@littlerock.gov>; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; Amber Carter Jones <ambercj@swbell.net>; Jeremiah Russell <jeremiah@roguearch.com>; Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov>; peckcapi@gmail.com; LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov>; Mayor Scott <mayorscott@littlerock.gov> Subject: Fwd: 921 Rock Street HDC2019-023, NE corner of 10th and Rock, Briggs 15-unit condo Dear Commissioners: Please, someone, make a motion to deny this proposal. As others have pointed out, the project is out of compliance with the Guidelines in terms of its first-floor elevations, the lack of side yards on the three lots, and the way the structure spills over the three individual lots. I recognize that the developer feels that he can make a greater profit crowding a 15-unit building onto the site, but there is no requirement on the part of the Commissioners to maximize the potential profitability of vacant lots in the historic district. Nor is there any reason to suddenly panic and allow non-conforming construction on these three lots which have lain vacant for several decades. I ask each of you to think how you would react, if for some reason, three lots on your own blocks, the blocks where you live were to be vacated. Would you be willing to allow the three separate lots to be consolidated so a 15-unit condominium could be constructed? Would you want that 15-unit condominium next door to you or across the street from your home? What would your neighbors think of you if you told them you were going to construct such a structure yourself? While it is true that the Historic District Commission does not make zoning changes, the HDC definitely may consider that a proposal is not consistent with currently allowed zoning. As Sec. 23-120(f) of Appendix G of the Guidelines puts it: "(f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d)." [emphasis added] This proposal has been dragging on for months. It is unfair to the proponent, area residents, the MacArthur Park Historic District, and the Historic District Commission to continue its consideration. Please, someone, make a motion to deny this proposal. There's no sense kicking this can down the road any longer. Dale J. Pekar 1010 Rock Little Rock, Arkansas 1 Minyard, Brian From:REBECCA DALTON <daltonrgcr@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 16, 2020 6:04 AM To:ambercj@swbell.net; Minyard, Brian; caleman@fridayfirm.com; Director Hendrix; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; Collins, Jackie; jeremiah@roguearch.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; LRzoning Subject:Round 3 I am resending my previous letter as nothing has changed. I think it is time to make a decision and put this to rest. Sincerely, Rebecca Dalton To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Untitled document -- 1 Minyard, Brian From:Antoinette Johnson <ajohnsonconsultant@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 12:23 PM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:10th and Rock St Attachments:Letter 3 for M McSwain.pdf; ATT00001.txt Brian: I’m attaching a letter speaking against the project at 10th and Rock St as proposed. Thank you, Toni Antoinette Johnson, PhD Johnson Consulting: Historic Preservation & Interior Design 501-350-5931 www.johnsondesignconsulting.com July 15, 2020 To: Little Rock Historic District Commissioners From: Dr. Antoinette Johnson Re: In-fill Development at corner of Rock and 10th Sts. Dear 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 deny the proposal for the project at 10th and Rock Streets. The developers current is TOO LARGE! The scale, mass and height of this proposed development does not comply with your standards and fit in with the existing historic structures in this historic district. 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 series of smaller-scale multi-family units such as two-story quadriplexes could be a wonderful asset to this community; however, the scale of this proposed structure is too large to compliment even the most diverse buildings in use, style and size of the existing historic buildings within its immediate surroundings. This large of a scale of a structure will overwhelm the existing homes and other buildings. (Yes, I realize that they are trying to “fool the eye” by offering various styles of building sections. But this project still reads as one enormous very tall, block-sized structure.) I encourage you to deny the project as proposed. Again, thank you for your time and energy, Antoinette Johnson, PhD 1 Minyard, Brian From:Rachel Patton <rpatton@preservearkansas.org> Sent:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:58 PM To:Mayor; Minyard, Brian; LRzoning; Collins, Jackie; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; Amber Jones; jeremiah@roguearch.com Subject:Please Deny HDC2019-023 Attachments:Preserve Arkansas Letter Opposing HDC2019-023 July 15-2020.pdf Dear Mayor Scott, Commissioners, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Minyard: On behalf of the board of Preserve Arkansas, I am writing to oppose HDC2019-023. Please take action and deny the application at the July 23rd Historic District Commission hearing. As the statewide nonprofit advocate for historic preservation, Preserve Arkansas supports compatible, thoughtfully designed infill construction in historic districts; however, the design for the proposed project at 10th and Rock streets is neither compatible nor designed with the surrounding historic buildings in mind. The proposed project’s 15 units are not in keeping with the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential Zoning, and the design reflects that, as it attempts to squeeze additional living space out of the allowable building height. The parking plan indicates 31 underground parking spaces, but the L-shaped area with one access point doesn’t appear to allow for adequate means of egress if the lot is full. The proposed buildings are not harmonious with the setting and feel of one of the earliest-platted blocks within the MacArthur Park Historic District and do not comply with HDC Guidelines for New Construction, as the size, scale, massing, materials, and form are out of character with the majority of buildings in the area of influence. The overall height is uncertain since it is unknown exactly how deep the underground parking level will go. The buildings’ three squat levels are unlike the surrounding historic one- and two-story buildings with indoor ceiling heights of 10 to 14 feet. When porches are included, the proposed set-back is much closer to the street than buildings in the immediate area, and the development covers almost the entirety of the ¼ block that is visible from the street. While some of the proposed buildings’ Craftsman-style elements are in keeping with nearby building design, the shaped Mission-style parapets are out of character. Furthermore, the wide variety of exterior wall materials, including “wood-like” and “limestone-like” finishes, brick, stucco, metal, and wood, is incompatible with surrounding structures and evocative of a modern suburban apartment complex. The longevity of synthetic “wood-like” and “limestone-like” materials is uncertain, and those materials may prove difficult to repair or replace five to ten years from now. I urge you to deny the application for HDC2019-023 as it currently exists and encourage the applicant to work with neighborhood residents and historic preservation organizations to find a design solution that will complement the historic character of the MacArthur Park Historic District for years to come. Thank you for your dedication to the preservation of Little Rock’s historic neighborhoods. Sincerely, Rachel Patton 2 Executive Director Preserve Arkansas Rpatton@preservearkansas.org 501-372-4757 -- Rachel Patton | Executive Director Preserve Arkansas Office: 201 W. Fourth Street | North Little Rock, AR 72114 Mailing: P.O. Box 305 | Little Rock, AR 72203 501-372-4757 | www.PreserveArkansas.org 501.372.4757 | P.O. Box 305 | Little Rock, AR 72203-0305 July 15, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor of Little Rock Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Department Brian Minyard, Planner II, Planning and Development Department RE: Opposition to HDC2019-023 Dear Mayor Scott, Commissioners, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Minyard: On behalf of the board of Preserve Arkansas, I am writing to oppose HDC2019-023. Please take action and deny the application at the July 23rd Historic District Commission hearing. As the statewide nonprofit advocate for historic preservation, Preserve Arkansas supports compatible, thoughtfully designed infill construction in historic districts; however, the design for the proposed project at 10th and Rock streets is neither compatible nor designed with the surrounding historic buildings in mind. The proposed project’s 15 units are not in keeping with the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential Zoning, and the design reflects that, as it attempts to squeeze additional living space out of the allowable building height. The parking plan indicates 31 underground parking spaces, but the L-shaped area with one access point doesn’t appear to allow for adequate means of egress if the lot is full. The proposed buildings are not harmonious with the setting and feel of one of the earliest-platted blocks within the MacArthur Park Historic District and do not comply with HDC Guidelines for New Construction, as the size, scale, massing, materials, and form are out of character with the majority of buildings in the area of influence. The overall height is uncertain since it is unknown exactly how deep the underground parking level will go. The buildings’ three squat levels are unlike the surrounding historic one- and two-story buildings with indoor ceiling heights of 10 to 14 feet. When porches are included, the proposed set-back is much closer to the street than buildings in the immediate area, and the development covers almost the entirety of the ¼ block that is visible from the street. While some of the proposed buildings’ Craftsman-style elements are in keeping with nearby building design, the shaped Mission-style parapets are out of character. Furthermore, the wide variety of exterior wall materials, including “wood-like” and “limestone-like” finishes, brick, Board of Directors Mason Ellis, AIA President Jill Judy VP of Development Tim Maddox, AIA VP of Education Mike Kinkade VP of Advocacy Kathy Boyette Treasurer & President- Elect Hunter M. Windle Secretary Julie Bridgforth Suzzette Goldmon, Ph.D. Edward Salo, Ph.D. W. Chris Sheppard, AIA Stuart Towns, Ph.D. Mandy Welch Angela Wilburn Ex-Officio Ruth A. Hawkins, Ph.D. Sec. Stacy Hurst Scott Kaufman Carl H. Miller, Jr. Cheri Nichols Greg Phillips Debbie Shea Hon. John Thurston Michael Higgs Charles Witsell, Jr., FAIA stucco, metal, and wood, is incompatible with surrounding structures and evocative of a modern suburban apartment complex. The longevity of synthetic “wood-like” and “limestone-like” materials is uncertain, and those materials may prove difficult to repair or replace five to ten years from now. I urge you to deny the application for HDC2019-023 as it currently exists and encourage the applicant to work with neighborhood residents and historic preservation organizations to find a design solution that will complement the historic character of the MacArthur Park Historic District for years to come. Thank you for your dedication to the preservation of Little Rock’s historic neighborhoods. Sincerely, Rachel Patton Executive Director Preserve Arkansas Rpatton@preservearkansas.org 501-372-4757 1 Minyard, Brian From:Rebecca Pekar <beccapek@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 1:47 AM To:Minyard, Brian; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseyMboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Mayor Subject:Opposition to HDC2019-023 July 15,2020 To all considering HDC2019-023, My name is Rebecca Pekar. I feel it is sad we are having to fight so hard for appropriate infill. Since moving into our home at 1010 Rock St. in 2000, we’ve seen the amazing downtown and SOMA growth, and the more recent development south of 630. We love old homes and were taken with the unique historic neighborhood right next to downtown. We don’t have the vibe of the core downtown or the more upscale feel of the Governor’s Mansion area. We are a modest NEIGHBORHOOD. As is determined by the current zoning meant to protect us, this complex is totally unsuitable. I hope you have walked the area and considered the homes that face and surround the proposed project. I find it disturbing that Cumberland Towers and Parkview Towers, which already overpower and weaken the historic district, have been used as justification for this proposal. I don’t believe we have such an urgent need for infill that we would settle for something based on maximum profitability rather than compatibility. I really question there is the market for high end condos in our area and am concerned what would become of the property in the future. Please deny this application that we might have the pleasure in the future to consider compatible infill that will enhance our neighborhood, respect zoning and guidelines, and reflect the area's history. Sincerely, Rebecca Pekar 1 Minyard, Brian From:Patricia Blick <patricia.blick@quapaw.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 15, 2020 3:05 PM To:Minyard, Brian; Jeremiah Russell Subject:QQA Comments for LR HDC Hearing, July 23, 2020 Attachments:QQA Comments for May 28 2020 LRHDC Hearing agenda item 2.pdf Good Afternoon, I just wanted to share our comments for the 10th and Rock project before tonight's deadline to have them reflected in the staff report. They are the ones we submitted for the last meeting. We will have additional comments in support of the NR nominations as well as the proposed undertaking at 1414 Park Lane, but will probably need to present them at the meeting next week-they are not ready yet. Thank you and take care, 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 Quapaw.com To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 Minyard, Brian From:Rachel Patton <rpatton@preservearkansas.org> Sent:Monday, July 20, 2020 4:08 PM To:Minyard, Brian; Mayor Scott; caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; Amber Jones; jeremiah@roguearch.com; Collins, Gilbert; LRzoning Subject:Additional Comments RE: HDC2019-023 from Westbrook Award Recipients Attachments:Westbrook Award Winners Oppose HDC2019-023 July 20-2020.pdf Dear Mayor Scott, Historic District Commissioners, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Minyard: I am submitting the attached letter stating opposition to HDC2019-023 on behalf of ten Little Rock residents who have been honored with Preserve Arkansas's Parker Westbrook Award for Lifetime Achievement, which recognizes outstanding achievements and contributions to the field of historic preservation in Arkansas over a number of years. Please consider this a supplemental item, separate and distinct from any comments already submitted by these individuals. Thank you, Rachel Patton -- Rachel Patton | Executive Director Preserve Arkansas Office: 201 W. Fourth Street | North Little Rock, AR 72114 Mailing: P.O. Box 305 | Little Rock, AR 72203 501-372-4757 | www.PreserveArkansas.org 501.372.4757 | P.O. Box 305 | Little Rock, AR 72203-0305 July 20, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor of Little Rock Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Little Rock Department of Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Urban Designer, Little Rock Department of Planning and Development RE: Opposition to HDC2019-023 Dear Mayor Scott, Commissioners, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Minyard: The undersigned – all Little Rock residents and past recipients of Preserve Arkansas’s Parker Westbrook Award for Lifetime Achievement – oppose the multi-family infill development proposed for the northeast corner of 10th and Rock Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District. Most of us have been involved in historic preservation, professionally and/or as volunteers, for more than forty years. We remember the City’s creation of the MacArthur Park Historic District in 1981, as well as the reasons the district was created: to encourage the rehabilitation of historic buildings in the area around MacArthur Park, Little Rock’s oldest surviving neighborhood, and to discourage incompatible intrusions into the neighborhood’s historic fabric. The proposed project at 10th and Rock Streets is a very large and incompatible intrusion into the MacArthur Park neighborhood’s historic fabric and would be a bad precedent for future infill development in the historic district. Others opposed to the project – notably the Quapaw Quarter Association and Preserve Arkansas – already have analyzed its shortcomings with respect to the eleven Design Factors used to evaluate new construction in the district. Consequently, we simply will say that we agree with those analyses and believe the project does not fully comply with any of the eleven Design Factors. All of us support good infill development in historic neighborhoods, but new construction must blend harmoniously with its historic neighbors. A different approach to redeveloping the vacant property at 10th and Rock Streets – perhaps echoing the six cottages that once stood on that site – would better serve both the MacArthur Park Historic District and the cause of historic preservation in Little Rock. Board of Directors Mason Ellis, AIA President Jill Judy VP of Development Tim Maddox, AIA VP of Education Mike Kinkade VP of Advocacy Kathy Boyette Treasurer & President- Elect Hunter M. Windle Secretary Julie Bridgforth Suzzette Goldmon, Ph.D. Edward Salo, Ph.D. W. Chris Sheppard, AIA Stuart Towns, Ph.D. Mandy Welch Angela Wilburn Ex-Officio Ruth A. Hawkins, Ph.D. Sec. Stacy Hurst Scott Kaufman Carl H. Miller, Jr. Cheri Nichols Greg Phillips Debbie Shea Hon. John Thurston Michael Higgs Charles Witsell, Jr., FAIA Please deny HDC2019-023. Sincerely, The Honorable Mark Stodola Carl Miller, Jr. Sandra Taylor Smith Charles Witsell Becky Witsell Bobby Roberts, Ph.D. Bill Worthen Missy McSwain Cheri Nichols Tommy Jameson, AIA 1 Minyard, Brian From:Malone, Walter Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:51 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023 fyi From: Frances McSwain [mailto:missymcswain18@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:46 AM To: caleman@fridayfirm.com; lindseymboerner@gmail.com; lfrederick@hosto.com; Rob Hodge <rob@hcglawoffice.com>; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net; Jeremiah Russell <jeremiah@roguearch.com> Cc: Mayor Scott <mayorscott@littlerock.gov>; Director Hendrix <ehendrix2644@att.net>; Capi Peck <peckcapi@gmail.com>; Collins, Gilbert <gcollins@littlerock.gov>; Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov>; Latimer, Sherri <slatimer@littlerock.gov>; LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov>; Malone, Walter <WMalone@littlerock.gov> Subject: PLEASE DENY HDC2019-023 Dear Commissioners: Once again I am asking you to DENY HDC2019-023. Please don’t allow another deferral. You can waive your bylaws and you can hear this application. You can stop what your Chair calls “an endless cycle of deferrals.” I assure you this design isn’t getting any better. In fact, the more I study it, the more deeply I am troubled that the LRHDC staff would EVER support such an inadequately designed plan that is so incompatible with the district. Did you notice the staff report fails to mention the METAL UTILITY BRIDGES that connect the buildings and are spanned by METAL ROOFS? Did you notice the staff report is so short on comparisons, it resorts to using Cumberland Towers as an example? What an insult! Do you think a ONE LANE egress on a quiet side street to the 31-space underground parking deck is a good plan? Why is there no NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION update to report the number of citizen comments on this project? Here's a rundown of the current opposition:  MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association 2  Quapaw Quarter Association  Preserve Arkansas  Recipients of the Parker Westbrook Lifetime Achievement Award in Historic Preservation  OUR.VOICES.MATTER. – STOP INCOMPATIBLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT AT 10 TH AND ROCK petition – 237 signatories  70 emails were sent before the May meeting, I am waiting to receive a current count from the City Multiple Facebook pages with combined memberships of over 14,000 are following this story. The Quapaw Quarter Association issued an Advocacy Alert. Reporters at the Arkansas Democrat/Gazette and the Arkansas Times have been notified. The 10th and Rock neighborhood is filled with OUR.VOICES.MATTER. – STOP INCOMPATIBLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT yard signs protesting the application. The sooner you attend to this business and DENY this application, the sooner this developer can get to work on a design that is appropriate to this district. We’re all willing to join that discussion. Thank you again for your service. Your job is difficult but this decision is easy! DENY HDC2019-023 Sincerely yours, Missy McSwain 1 Minyard, Brian From:Malone, Walter Sent:Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:50 AM To:Minyard, Brian Subject:FW: I oppose HDC2019-023 fyi -----Original Message----- From: Cheri Nichols [mailto:cgnichols79@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2020 11:32 AM To: LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov>; Mayor Scott <mayorscott@littlerock.gov>; Christina Aleman <caleman@fridayfirm.com>; Lindsey Boerner <lindseymboerner@gmail.com>; Lauren Frederick <lfrederick@hosto.com>; Robert Hodge <rob@hcglawoffice.com>; Ted Holder <holderheuvel@yahoo.com>; Amber Carter Jones <ambercj@swbell.net>; Jeremiah Russell <jeremiah@roguearch.com>; Collins, Jackie <JCollins@littlerock.gov>; Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.gov> Cc: Latimer, Sherri <slatimer@littlerock.gov>; Malone, Walter <WMalone@littlerock.gov>; Capi Peck <peckcapi@gmail.com> Subject: I oppose HDC2019-023 Dear Mayor Scott, Commissioners, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Minyard: I am re-sending my letter of May 20, 2020 (below) expressing opposition to the proposed development at 10th and Rock Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District. Since nothing about the project has changed, neither have the reasons for my opposition. However, I would like to make one additional point: Along with the neighbors in the vicinity of 10th and Rock Streets, virtually the entire historic preservation "universe" in Little Rock, including the statewide preservation organization and the local preservation organization, has expressed opposition to this project for basically the same reasons: it is too big and its design is not compatible with neighboring historic buildings. With neighbors and local preservationists united in opposition, it is difficult to understand why the Little Rock Historic District Commission seems to have had difficulty making a decision on the project. I hope you will honor the views of neighbors and preservationists by denying the application at Thursday's hearing. Thank you, Cheri Nichols 315 Rock Street, #1303 Little Rock, AR 72202 On 5/20/2020 11:03 AM, Cheri Nichols wrote: > The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor of Little Rock Little Rock Historic > District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Little Rock Department > of Planning and Development Brian Minyard, Urban Designer, Little Rock > Department of Planning and Development > > RE: HDC2019-023 2 > > > Dear Mayor Scott, Commissioners, Mr. Collins, and Mr. Minyard: > > I am writing to reiterate my opposition -- previously expressed in an > email of December 18, 2019 -- to the proposed infill project at 10th > and Rock Streets in the MacArthur Park Historic District. Although > revisions have been made since December, the proposed development > remains out of scale with the area around it. It still is too tall > and too wide and contains too many dwelling units in too little space. > (As an aside, I hope all HD Commissioners have made a point of > visiting the proposed project site because the submittals for the > project rather misleadingly include only photos of the largest and > least architecturally important buildings adjacent to the site, > entirely omitting the several charming one-story historic houses that > stand directly across both Rock and 10th Streets.) > > As a professional historic preservationist who has been involved in > issues in the historic district since shortly after it was created in > 1981, I am disturbed by what seems to be a trend toward shoehorning > large multi-family developments into Little Rock's oldest surviving > neighborhood. These developments epitomize exactly what the historic > district was created to prevent: major intrusions into the historic > fabric that undermine the district's distinctiveness and lead to the > irreplaceable loss of the district's aesthetic, cultural, and historic > values. > > Previous large-scale projects constructed in the 500 block of Rock > Street and 900 block of Scott Street at least were at the margins of > the historic district. The proposed project site at 10th and Rock, > however, is in the heart of the district, surrounded by > well-maintained one- and two-story historic homes, including the > especially important Kadel Cottages at 407 and 417 East 10th Street, > both built before the Civil War. (They are two of just a handful of > houses in Little Rock that survive from the antebellum period.) The > corner of 10th and Rock Streets most certainly is not an appropriate > place to build fifteen units on just three lots. > > (An exception to the one- and two-story scale, of course, is the > mid-20th century Park Place apartment building which backs up to the > proposed project site. But it is just that: an exception, not the > rule. Consequently, it is not the model that should be followed.) > > It does appear that the revised project design makes an effort to > incorporate Craftsman and Mission-style elements. The Craftsman style > (but not the Mission style) is found in the historic district, > especially in the design of early-20th century fourplexes. If the > proposed development also adhered to the scale of those early-20th > century apartment buildings, a Craftsman-influenced design could be > appropriate. > > As it is, with the scale of the proposed project so thoroughly 3 > incompatible with the surrounding area, I urge the Little Rock > Historic District Commission not to approve the project and to make > clear that large multi-family developments are not the future of the > MacArthur Park Historic District. > > Sincerely, > > Cheri Nichols > 315 Rock Street, #1303 > Little Rock, Arkansas 72202