Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-05-12 2 McSwain Letter to Mayor Scott LRHD Commissioners CLR StaffFRANCES M. McSWAIN * 407 E. 10TH STREET * LITTLE ROCK, AR 72202 May 12, 2020 The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor, City of Little Rock Little Rock Historic District Commissioners Jamie Collins, Director, Department of Planning and Development, City of Little Rock Brian Minyard, Urban Designer, Department of Planning and Development, City of Little Rock RE: HDC2019-023- Please Deny Dear All: As a property owner and resident in the MacArthur Park Historic District I urge the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023. Appropriate infill development is welcome in the District but this 15-unit residential complex proposed for three vacant lots at 10th and Rock Streets does not comply with the design factors set forth in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction and will forever diminish the District’s historic integrity, character and sense of place. New buildings should be harmonious in form, material, setting and scale within the established District. The zoning for this area is R4-A – Low Density Residential District - which allows for the maximum development of duplex dwellings on each lot. A 15-unit residential complex is not low density and is an intrusion that will disrupt the continuity of the area of influence. The eleven design factors (as outlined in the MacPark Guidelines) are critical components used to preserve the character and architectural heritage of the neighborhood. Below are the design factors and comments as to the proposed project’s compatibility with each factor: 1. Siting - As one of the earliest residential blocks established in Little Rock the 10th and Rock Street area contains a charming mixture of 19th century single-story cottages and larger two- story homes. Two early to mid- 20th century residential buildings are also present in the area. The proposed complex is inconsistent with the prevailing development patterns because the setbacks are too narrow and the buildings cover too much of the site. Typical front setbacks in the area are 20 feet. Most structures also have side and rear yards which enhances their siting and provides a livable feel to the setting. The front setbacks for this development are 5 feet on 10th Street and 6 feet on Rock Street. The complex’s side yard setback is 2 feet on 10th Street and 5 feet on Rock Street. The backyard area is not visible to either 10th or Rock Streets. 2. Height – The exact height of this project is difficult to determine because of a partially- submerged underground parking level which plans read “varies from 9 – 11 feet”. With 35 feet as the maximum height for new construction (measured from lowest finished floor) the real height of the building could well exceed this limit because of the unknown depth of the underground parking level. Any new construction that is taller than 35 feet is out of compliance with the guidelines. 3. Proportion – With the exception of Park Place, the Mid-Century apartments facing Commerce Street, there are no other structures in the area of influence that have the same proportions as this development’s height and width. The prevailing patterns of development in the area are single and two-story residential homes. The siting of Park Place Apartments is quite different from this project because of the wide front setback (26.5 feet) which also opens onto MacArthur Park. 4. Rhythm – This design is not harmonious with the neighborhood and does not reflect the rhythm of the existing historic structures. Many of the homes in the area have interior ceiling heights of 10 feet -14 feet. Although window styles vary, most structures have large windows and deep and spacious front porches that create a graceful feel and invite human interaction with the sidewalk and street. It seems that every effort has been made to maximize residential space within the complex which makes the rhythm of doors, windows, porches, and balconies unlike any other structures in the area of influence. Each of the three floors appear short and squatty when compared to the existing rhythm of the neighboring structures. 5. Scale – The design of the development as it fits into the neighborhood is visually overwhelming and too large for the three lots. The three buildings are within 10-11 feet of each other with hard surfaces on the ground level. A total of six metal utility bridges connect the second and third levels of each building. Metal roof structures span the space between the buildings which ties the buildings together and reads as one large structure. There are certainly no buildings in the area of influence connected by metal bridges and metal roofs. Most of the neighboring structures are surrounding by green space and mature landscaping. Please note the application submission includes only four photographs of structures in the area of influence. These four structures are the largest buildings in the area. There are eight one- story and one-and-a-half story cottages that face the site and are not represented in the application. 6. Massing – The massing of this development is not compatible with the surrounding area. There are no other historic buildings with this volume and magnitude that are as close to the street and have this roof form. Because the three buildings in the complex are joined by metal utility bridges at the second and third floors and spanned by a metal roof structure, the buildings will present to the street as one massive structure. This design does not relate to the massing of any other buildings in the area of influence. Again, please note the lack of photos in the submission showing the surrounding cottages and streetscapes. 7. Entrance Areas – It is unclear from the application how the doors are designed. There are transoms shown in the elevations but not on the entry door cut sheet. Nor is the height, width and material indicated on the cut sheet. The typical entrance areas in the District are enclosed by large and inviting porches with brick or wood columns and railings. The scale of the neighboring structures reflects the high ceilings in the interior entryways whereas the design of these entrance areas appears smaller and less inviting. 8. Wall Areas – Most of the wall areas in this design are a solid three-story vertical face with small porches, doors, overhangs, metal balconies, metal utility bridges and different sizes of single, double, and triple vinyl windows. The windows are vinyl with “wood-like “cornices and trim. It is unknown if the windows are two over two or four over one as the configuration differs on the elevations and the project information. The building on the corner of Rock and 10th Streets is stepped back at the third-floor corner to provide a balcony for the top unit. The railings for the balconies are described as “Decorative Iron Railing” but there are no cut sheets for the product. The exterior walls are finished in a variety of products including brick veneer, stucco and a “limestone like” ceramic tile. Most of the surrounding homes are sided with wood but there are several brick structures. There is a small amount of stucco, no limestone and very little synthetic material. Because of the verticality of the walls, the variety of materials (including vinyl, metal, iron, limestone-like tile, stucco, brick and wood and wood-like projects) the wall areas depicted on this plan are incompatible with the wall areas of the neighboring houses. 9. Roof Areas – The complex’s mansard roof area is unlike any other roof in the area. There are a total of seven sloping dormers on the third floor with metal roofs and parapets. The drawing also indicates metal roof systems covering the utility bridges and connecting the buildings together. There are no metal roof systems on primary structures in this neighborhood. There are no metal dormer roofs and metal roof systems spanning any neighboring buildings. Composition shingles are on the mansard roof of the third floor as well as the second story overhangs and the first-floor porches. The historic structures in the area of influence have hipped or gabled roof structures covered with composition shingles. There are no mansard roof systems on the neighboring structures. 10. Facades - Most of the façade is stucco and brick veneer except for the 10th and Rock Streets corner units that are sheathed with 12-inch x 24-inch “stone like” tile also described as “limestone like”. Most of the neighboring cottages and homes are sided with wood. Brick is used on several of the structures. There is a minimal amount of stucco and no limestone or ceramic tile in the area of influence. Please note 1000 Rock St. is partially covered in Permastone which was popular in the 1930s. It came in veneer panels and was applied over wood siding. Permastone is not a desirable material to emulate in a modern design. The combination of limestone-like ceramic tile, brick veneer, stucco, vinyl windows, metal utility bridges, decorative iron and metal railings, wood brackets, wood-like cornices, metal roofing and composition shingles present a fussy appearance that detracts from the surrounding simple wood and brick structures and is not compatible. Compared to the antebellum Kadel Cottage 1 (c. 1852) and Kadel Cottage 2 (c. 1860) which both stand on 10th Street directly across the street from this project, this design is not only incompatible but is also insulting to their simple wood frame designs. 11. Detailing – The use of a mansard roof is reflective of the Second Empire (French) architectural style and is not found in this neighborhood. But it appears that the predominate architectural influence is Craftsman Style (which is found in the neighborhood) because of its use of overhangs, wood brackets and mix materials. The design approach of compatible infill should be simple and restrained which this design is not. The metal utility bridges remind one of a 1970’s motel. The shape of four of the third -floor dormers is difficult to read as any style and is not found in the area of influence. It is reminiscent of the façade of The Alamo located in San Antonio, TX. Please visit our neighborhood and see for yourself the adverse impact such a development would have on this fragile little area. We desperately need and deserve the protection that the Little Rock Historic District Local Ordinance was created to provide. Please deny this application. I trust you are all safe and well. Thank you for your time and attention to this letter. Most sincerely yours, Frances M. McSwain 501.944.1126