HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-21 communication compliation for HDC2019-023Minyard, 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
THE
May 20, 2020
Mr. Brian Minyard, AICP
Urban Designer
City of Little Rock
723 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Brian,
PRESERVING THE PAST. SHAPING THE FUTURE.
The QQA has prepared comments in response to the application for the undertaking at 10th & Rock, Agenda item #2 for
LR HDC Hearing on Thursday, May 28, 2020. Please include the attached in the record reflecting our opposition to the
project as submitted. I will also share this with the commissioners.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Patricia M. Blick
Executive Director
C: LRHDC
Quapaw Quarter Association
Curran Hall
615 E. Capitol Avenue
P.O. Box 165023
Little Rock, Arkansas 72216
501-371-0075
2020 Board of Directors
Ashli Ahrens, President
Ann Ballard Bryan
Chuck Clfett
Molly McNulty, President-elect
Kenya Eddings
Joshua Ang Price, Secretary
Antonio Figueroa
NgoW "Nome" Brown, Treasurer
Tricia Peacock VP Development
Jana Setva
Arigon
P
[3arius Waaltlton
David Robinson, VP Advocacy
Doyle Wobb
Toni Johnson, VP Education
TO: Little Rock Historic District Commission
FROM: Patricia M. Blick, ED, QQA
DATE: May 20, 2020
RE: LRHDC Agenda item #2, Proposed Development 101h & Rock, MacArthur Park NR Historic District
The QCIA Advocacy Committee and the Full Board of the QQA have reviewed the application materials for the proposed
15 -unit condominium development on the vacant lot at the corner of 10th & Rock.
The QQA supports development and new construction in the MacArthur Park National Register listed historic district.
However, it must be appropriate and compatible with its environs. The qualities that qualify a neighborhood for
inclusion in the National Register must be protected, otherwise, the integrity of the district may be compromised and
the National Register status may be jeopardized.
As proposed, the QQA does not recommend approval of the application.
As the QQA (both the Advocacy Committee and the full board) reviewed the application, we utilized the LRHDC design
factors for new construction, multifamily. Most importantly, as outlined in each of the LRHDC design factors, we took
into consideration the context of the site, including all of the resources in the immediate vicinity of the project, those
which will be impacted the greatest by the proposed undertaking.
From Little Rock MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction (2016)
Section V. Design Guidelines for Detached New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings (starting on page 31),
these are the eleven factors to be considered in reviewing proposed infill developments, from the Guidelines:
1. Design factors
a. Siting
b. Height
c. Proportion
d. Rhythm
e. Scale
f. Massing
g. Entrance Area
h. Wall Areas
i. Roof Area
j. Fagade
k. Detailing
The Guidelines also give additional direction for evaluation of the proposals:
Compatible new construction should preserve and enhance the historic, architectural and cultural features of
the district.
...an understanding of the existing architectural character should be viewed as the starting point for any infill
design...."
v "....first review the design factors and incorporate them appropriate into the design with respect to the
applicant's area of influence as defined to be all properties situated within 15(Y .............
After we received the materials we visited the project site and assessed the properties in the area of influence. The
application included three adjacent properties: to the East, South, and North, but there are many more that, in
accordance with the Guidelines, must be taken into consideration as this project is evaluated.
Resources in immediate vicinity of project site
L
8. `st?t VIt l��i
M
-Park Place Apartments
H Protect
Sit:
G
A
F
E
D
C B
>r
ittle Rock Vioii,,i Shop
Resources keyed to map, National Register status noted as indicated in the National Register nomination for the
MacArthur Park Historic District, AHPP, 1977 & 2015.
A. Park Place Apartments, 920 S. Commerce St., contributing resource of MacArthur Park NR Historic District
B.419 E. loth St., contributing resource of MacArthur Park, NR Historic District
C. Second Kadel
417 E. 10th St., contributing resource of MacArthur Park, NR Historic District
D. Kadel Cottage, 407 E. 10th St., contributing resource of MacArthur Park, NR Historic District
E. Ellerman-Ferling House, 401 E. le St., c. 1890, contributing resource of MacArthur Park. NR Historic District
F. 1002 S. Rock St., contributing resource of the MacArthur Park NR Historic District
G.924/926 S. Rock St., contributing resource of the MacArthur Park NR Historic District
H. 920 S. Rock St., non-contributing resource of the MacArthur Park NR Historic District
Rhow
I. 912/914 S. Rock St., contributing resource of MacArthur Park NR historic district.
1908 S. Rock St., contributing resouce of MacArthur Park NR Historic District
K. 904 S. Rock St., contributing resource of MacArthur Park NR Historic District
ING-, -41 - -:t
L. 900 S. Rock St., contributing resouce of MacArthur Park NR Historic District
M. 913 S. Rock St., non-contribuitng resource of MacArthur Park PIR Historic District
Given this context, the project was evaluated against each of the design factors -relevant sections included below,
emphasis added where proposal is not consistent with design factor:
a. Siting
Siting means the location of a building in relationship to the legal boundaries and setbacks, adjacent
properties, and the natural conditions of the site.
Proposed building location and placement should be consistent with the prevailing development
patterns found within the area of influence of the subject property.
The proposed development is NOT consistent with the prevailing development patterns found within the area of
influence. It is closer to the public right of way than the majority of the historically significant resources (as well as some
non-significant resources) in the area of influence.
As an appropriate example, the primary elevation of the adjacent multifamily building, Park Place Apartments, has a
more appropriate setback for the neighborhood and the mass is mitigated with a uniform treatment and a recessed
sections.
b. Height
■ Height means the vertical distance as measured through the central axis of the building from the
elevation of the lowest finished floor level to the highest point of the building. Within the MacArthur
Park Historic District, the height of any new building should be not exceed 35 feet. This does not include
chimneys. Drawings submitted should be graphic in nature, convey overall proportions and to scale.
The proposed development does not exceed this height limit, however, it is considerably taller than the majority of the
historic properties within the area of influence. The primary elevations of the proposed development, fronting Rock and
10th Streets, are facing historic resources of a much smaller, more pedestrian friendly scale.
c. Proportion
Applicants who propose new infill developments within the MacArthur Park Historic District should
provide drawings that demonstrate sympathy to the proportions of the prevailing patterns of
development within the immediate surroundings of the subject property. Drawings submitted should be
graphic in nature, convey overall proportions and co scale.
It is appropriate to construct a new building whose facade height and width are similar to existing
buildings within the area of influence.
The proposed development does not maintain the prevailing height and width proportions as buildings within the area
of influence. It is much taller scale than the historic resources in the area of influence.
d. Rhythm
The district is characterized by a wide variety of architectural styles and building types, within each block
having varying degrees consistency of proportion and rhythm. This consistency should be applied to
proposed new developments and refers to not just the building, but also porches, galleries, balcony
projections, and openings. Drawings submitted should be graphic in nature, convey overall proportions
and to scale.
It is inappropriate to construct new buildings in such a way that they are incongruous with the rhythms and patterns of
existing buildings within the area of influence. The proposed development is inconsistent with the historic resources in
the area of influence.
e. Scale
Scale refers to the ratio of height and width and its relationship to the street facade and should be
similar in proportion to neighboring buildings.
New construction should neither be visually overwhelming_ or underwhelming when compared to the
prevailing_patt_erns of development within the area of influence. Where larger developments are
proposed, special attention should be given to the location siting,setbacks facade tre t ents
(detailin and the effect, of the proposed development on the streetscape and area of influence as a
whole.
The proposed development is substantially larger than the majority of historic properties in the area of influence. The
raised foundation, necessary to construct underground parking, as well as the height of the buildings, the proximity to
the street, and the addition of the porches and balconies overwhelms most of the neighboring historic properties.
f. Massing
a Massing means volume, magnitude or overall size of a building. Massing refers to the overall shape of major
building volumes and their composition as a whole. This includes porches, roofs, projections, recesses, wings
and ells or bays.
■ New construction should be similar in mass to buildings within the area of influence. This will allow the new
building to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood
The proposed development has several components not found in she area of influence. The plans show a combination
of gable front projections, arched parapet roof forms, elevated porches, large scale balconies which are not typical of
most of the historic resources the area of influence.
g. Entrance Area
Primary entrances should front directly onto the primary associated street or the associated primary
facade. When desi pin the main entrance area aPolicants should utilize forms masses proportions,
rhythm, and scale as found within the area of influence for the subiect property. Applicants should
provide a design that demonstrates sympathy to the proportions of the prevailing patterns of
development within the immediate surroundings of the subiect property.
The proposed development has entrance elements that are out of proportion to those found in the area of influence.
Instead of each "town house" having an entrance, they are grouped together resulting in long stretches of elevation
without an obvious entrance.
h. Wali Areas
Wall area refers to the proportion, rhythm, and scale of walls, their associated openings and their
relationship to buildings within the area of influence.
• Applicants should provide a design that demo sty es SVMDathy to the Proportions, rhythms and scale
of therevailin atterns of evelo ment within the immediate surroundings of the subiect proveM.
i. Roof Area
• There are many roof types present within the historic district such as Mansard, Gable, Hip, Gambrel,
Shed, Dutch Gable, etc. For this reason applicants should attempt to resemble the prevailing patternsof
develo ment within the area of influence of Ihe sub'ect groperty.
The proposed development has multiple styles of roof shapes, at least one of which, the arched parapet, is not evident
in the area of influence
j. Facade
Generally, materials for new construction should match or mimic those found in the prevailing patterns
of development within the area of influence.
However, materials need not be identical to those found within the Historic District if they are
complementary, particularly in areas where there is a diversity of materials.
The proposed development is utilizing materials not found in the area of influence, limestone, limestone look, and the
smooth stucco with wash. While an exact match is not required, the materials should reference and relate in scale the
materials in the area of influence. Which the development does not do.
k. Detailing
Detailing refers to trim pieces that include moldings, decorative elements and features that are
secondary to the major wall surfaces and materials. Historical trim and detail moldings are both
functional and help to identify historical styles which may place a building within a specific time period.
Modern trim generally does not serve a functiona�[ need, but does provide for transition between
dissimilar building materials and can be used to enhance a building's proportions, rhythm, scale and
massing to more closely mimic buildings within the area of influence.
Common detail elements include cornices, lintels, arches, balustrades, chimneys, shutters, columns,
posts and other architectural features. Where an applicant may choose to use these elements in a
strictly decorative fashion it is encouraged that they appear as if they would be functional.
The details reference the craftsman style of the development, which is not found in the area of influence. Those
specified details appear ornamental, not functional, for example the brackets appear out of scale for the upper eaves.
The combination of wood and metal for the balconies also seems inconsistent with the craftsman style reference. The
window design does not possess the characteristics of a craftsman window, nor do the proposed light fixtures. The font
for the development sign is also not of a craftsman character.
The proposed development is not consistent with the LRHDC Design Factors. For these reasons, the QQA does not
recommend approval of this project as proposed.
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.
S. Scale —The design of the development as it fits into the neighborhood is visual aye_ rwhelniing
and too lar =c 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 facade 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 comoatible.
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 fa4ade 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
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; Ifrederick@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 scale within the established
District and in keeping with the current 114-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 114-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,
Susan M. Taylor
904 Rock St. Little Rock, AR 72202
501-240-3234
susanmta-ylorI3�?a gmail.com
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 vote
no on this misguided proposal.
Jim Pfeifer aia
5305 Kavanaugh, Little Rock AR 72223
jimpfei6Cdaoi.co_m
5012471817
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; Ifrederick@hosto.com;
rob@hcglawoffice.com; holderheuvel@yahoo.com; ambercj@swbell.net;
jeremiah@roguearch.com; Collins, Jackie; peckcapi@gmail.com; LRzoning
Subject: H DC2019-023
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 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' 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,
Ann Ballard Bryan ann. baIlard .bryan@gma i l.com 501-519-2002
James W. Bryan, IV iwbryan4@swbell.net 501-374-5396
2009 South Arch Street
Little Rock, AR 72206
Kathy G. dells
P.O. Sox 777, Little Rock, AR 72203-0777
501-960-6918 wordsmithlr��mail.com 2121 S. Gaines St.
May 18, 2020
The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor
Little Rock Historic District Commissioners
Via email
RE: HDC2019-023 — PLEASE REJECT PROPOSAL
Dear Mayor Scott and Commissioners,
As a property owner in the MacArthur Park Historic District, I urge the Little Rock Historic District
Commission to reject 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 tow 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 uMmpathetic and out of character with
the neighboring historic structures and especially 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 include 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 apply 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.
Yours Truly,
Kathy Wells
Copy to: Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development
Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development
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 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,
Carrie Butler
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
robna,heglawoffice.corn
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Danny Cook <danrcook@a@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{ir7.Iittlerock.gov>, Director David Collins <david.collins@arkansas.gov>, Brian
Minyard <bminyard@littierockaov>, Director Erma Hendrix <ehendrix2644@a gmail.com>, Sherry
<slatimer littlerock. ova, Walter Malone <wmalone@littlerock.g_oy>, Christina <cai_eman@fridayfirm.com>,
Lindsey Boerner<lindseymboerner@grnail.com>, Lauren Frederich <Ifrederick hosto.com>, Robert
<rob@hcglawoffice.com>, Ted Holder <holderheuvel yahoo.com>, Amber Jones <amberci aCe swbell.net>,
Jeremiah <ieremiah@a.roguearch.com>, Jamie Collins <jcollins@littlerock.gov>, Capi <pgckcaI2J!@ .cnm>,
Little Rock Zoning <]r2oning@ ittlerock.gov>
Cc: Frances McSwain <missymcswainl8 a@ mail.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
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.
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 a swbell.net
May 20, 2020
To Whom, It May Concern,
I purchased. my home at 41910th S Iast year. I tell in love vAth ft charm ofthe
neighboftod and historichorneo�, Having strict guidelines for outside improvements and
construction, in the area also made me feelgood about preserving the iniea r ty and value of rnv
hame I live in a small 1,300 s -q ft rage wilt in 1987 on the corn. ar of 10th and Commerce. It
was completely r>rstored in 1997 follavving the stria guidelines of Me H[storio Districts
Although I cerainly do not have a problem %vith new constructor, l feel vet!`y strungly that the
Makthur park historic distract Gudeknes should be strictly ads -amd to and not charged to
accommodate proposed development that does not fit the gLddelines. But rather, derrellopment
should: be changed to fit the guidelines and zoning regLdrem Wts, I Will not peat the inform2non
that has already deem .provided to you in suppott against this new proposed development and
the detailed areas W flow it dde5 not fit within our quid2GnG&
1 ask that. you please proLact our -unique neighborhood and c harac#.er of this hstor c area. Once
gone, it can nearer retu.-n.
Sincerely,
3
Dr. Rebecca Galton
419 >E 10th Street
501-706-4691
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,
C.l-�/i.Q. ► aCJ
Laura Sergeant Edward Sergeant, AIA
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: Ifrederick@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
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
ON
Minyard, Brian
From: Matt Pekar <mpekar@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:54 AM
To: Minyard, Brian
Subject: writing in opposition of item HDC19-023 at 921 Rock Street
Greetings Brian, sorry for getting this in late.
I am writing in opposition to the current proposal for development at 921 Rock Street. It has substantial
improvements from the original plan but still fails to comply with the guidelines on three critical elements:
* Side yard setbacks, Section IV, 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 has no side yard setbacks whatsoever and thus is completely non-compliant with this requirement.
* Site coverage, Section IV, 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 each lot with no side yards and almost no front yard space. It is thus completely
non-compliant with this requirement.
* Foundation height, Section IV, page 34 states:
"New construction should maintain typical foundation heights."
Although there have been efforts to reduce the height of the below -ground garage space, it is still out of
compliance.
I wish to acknowledge current plan appears to now comply with the following elements that it previously did
not:
* fence height at 3 feet now appears to comply
* the facade of the building has been improved to reduce weight towards the front
The end result of this application is that it is out of compliance and the plan should be denied.
Guidelines referenced:
https-://www.Iittlerock.gov/media/I 768/section-v.df
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
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:
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, 1 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 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
.I
IkI
�( PRESERVE
refrore, redevelop, revitalize
Board of Directors
May 20, 2020
Mason Ellis, AIA
President
The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor of Little Rock
Jill Judy
Little Rock Historic District Commissioners
VP of Development
Tim Maddox, AIA
ramie Collins, Director, Planning and Development Department
of Education
Brian Min and Planner II Planning and Development DepartmentVP
Mike Kinkade
VP of Advocacy
RE: Opposition to HDC2019-023
Kathy Boyette
Treasurer & President-
Dear All,
Elect
Hunter M. Secretary Windle
On behalf of the board of Preserve Arkansas, l am writing to oppose
HDC2019-023. As the statewide nonprofit advocate for historic
Julie Bridgforth
preservation, Preserve Arkansas supports compatible, thoughtfully
State Rep. Denise Ennett
designed infill construction in historic districts; however, the design for
Suzzette Goldmon, Ph.D.
Edward Salo, Ph.D.
the proposed project at 10`h and Rock streets is neither compatible nor
W. Chris Sheppard, AIA
designed with the surrounding historic buildings in mind.
Stuart Towns, Ph.D.
Mandy Welch
The proposed project's 15 units are not in keeping with the area's R4 -A
Angela Wilburn
Low Density Residential Zoning, and the design reflects that, as it
Ex -Officio
attempts to squeeze additional living space out of the allowable building
height. The parking plan indicates 31 underground parking spaces, but
Ruth A. Hawkins, Ph.D.
the L-shaped area with one access point doesn't appear to allow for
Sec. Stacy Hurst
adequate means of egress if the lot is full.
Scott Kaufman
Carl H. Miller, Jr.
Cheri Nichols
proposed g The ro osed buildin s are not harmonious with the setting and feel of
Greg Phillips
one of the earliest -platted blocks within the MacArthur Park Historic
Debbie Shea
District and do not comply with HDC Guidelines for New Construction,
Hon. John Thurston
Michael Higgs
as the size, scale, massing, materials, and form are out of character with
Charles Witsell, Jr., FAIA
the majority of buildings in the area of influence. The overall height is
g
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 V4 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.
'�iOI.3 F A' > r I RO. Box 3015 1 Little mock, AFS 72203-013")05
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, A
v�dl
�� MI
Rachel Patton
Executive Director
Preserve Arkansas
R atton reservearkansas.or
501-372-4757
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@little rock.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
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 HisultILIg to the simple mid-to-late 19m Century and early 20- 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
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.
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:pfarre114550@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:29 PM
To: LRzoning <LRzoning@little rock.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
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.coml
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:07 AM
To: LRzoning <LRzoning@little roc k.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
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@little rock.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 Phone
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:leholmes6l@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:07 AM
To: LRzoning <LRzoning@little rock.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
Minyard, Brian
From: Coleman, Stephen
Sent: Wednesday, May 2Q, 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@little rock.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
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.comj
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 anail.coin
501-520-8118
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
Minyard, Brian
� w
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@little rock.gov>
Subject: Zoning
I OPPOSE HDC2019-023
Sent from my iPhone
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
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@little rock.gov>
Subject: Proposed Rezoning
I OPPOSE HDC2019-023
Sent from my iPhone
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@little rock.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
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.comj
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:09 AM
To: LRzoning <LRzoning@little rock.gov>
Subject: no to HDC2019-023
I oppose HDC2019-023.
Katherine West
501-240-4745
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?
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 woi•kigg iogefher 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 derv.. 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
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
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
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
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; Ifrederick@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
Minyard, Brian
From: Rebecca Pekar <beccapek@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 4:32 PM
To: Minyard, Brian; caleman@fridayfirm.com; IindseyMboerner@gmail.com;
Ifrederick@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.
Sincerely,
Rebecca Pekar
501-554-6585
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 lacobacci-Miller [mailto:hriacobacci@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 9:34 AM
To: LRzoning <LRzoning@little rock.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 lacobacci-Miller
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; Ifrederick@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
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
maiito:paul dodds.us
http://www.urbanfrontier.o[g
http://www.linkedin.com/in/paulddodds
Recipient of 2015 Preserve Arkansas Award for Neighborhood Preservation
Minyard, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Coleman, Stephen
Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:45 AM
Minyard, Brian
FW: 10th and Rock
Follow up
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 HDC2019-023 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
Minyard, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Coleman, Stephen
Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:46 AM
Minyard, Brian
FW: HDC2019-023
Follow up
Flagged
From: Jennifer Burnett[mailto:jennifermichelleburnett85@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 7:45 AM
To: LRzoning <LRzoning@little rock.gov>
Subject: HDC2019-023
I am opposed to HDC2019-023 and rezoning!
Jennifer Burnett
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@little rock.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
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@little rock.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.
Minyard, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Coleman, Stephen
Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:46 AM
Minyard, Brian
FW: HDC -2019-023
Follow up
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
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@little rock.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
Minyard, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Coleman, Stephen
Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:47 AM
Minyard, Brian
FW: HDC -2019-023
Follow up
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
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!
z4mea i y
"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:
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
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
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 . marshal l @.pmai l , co m
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
Minyard, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Coleman, Stephen
Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:49 AM
Minyard, Brian
FW: 10th and Rock St.
Follow up
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
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
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@little rock.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
Minyard, Brian
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Coleman, Stephen
Thursday, May 21, 2020 8:49 AM
Minyard, Brian
FW: HDC2019-23
Follow up
Flagged
-----Original Message -----
From: Charlene Riggs [mailto:charieneariggs@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:36 PM
To: LRzoning <LRzoning@little rock.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
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@little rock.gov>
Subject: Fwd: 10th and Rock Street
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kathi Jones <kathiiones@swheli.net>
Subject: 10th and Rock Street
Date: May 20, 2020 at 9:01:56 PM CDT
To: I rzon i ng(a7lttie rock. 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
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.comj
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
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 Frock 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