HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-07-14 email danny cook1
Minyard, Brian
From:Malone, Walter
Sent:Tuesday, July 14, 2020 4:26 PM
To:Minyard, Brian
Subject:FW: I am OPPOSED to HDC2019-023 Development at 10th and Rock Streets
fyi
From: Danny Cook [mailto:danrcook@swbell.net]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:24 PM
To: Mayor <mayor@littlerock.gov>; David Collins <david.collins@arkansas.gov>; Minyard, Brian
<BMinyard@littlerock.gov>; Director Erma Hendrix <ehendrix2644@gmail.com>; Latimer, Sherri
<slatimer@littlerock.gov>; Malone, Walter <WMalone@littlerock.gov>; Christina <caleman@fridayfirm.com>; Lindsey
Boerner <lindseymboerner@gmail.com>; Lauren Frederich <lfrederick@hosto.com>; Robert <rob@hcglawoffice.com>;
Ted Holder <holderheuvel@yahoo.com>; Amber Jones <ambercj@gmail.com>; Jeremiah <jeremiah@roguearch.com>;
Collins, Jackie <JCollins@littlerock.gov>; Capi <peckcapi@gmail.com>; LRzoning <LRzoning@littlerock.gov>
Cc: Frances McSwain <missymcswain18@gmail.com>; Ray Wittenberg <rwittenberg@oxfordamerican.org>
Subject: FW: I am OPPOSED to HDC2019-023 Development at 10th and Rock Streets
July 14, 2020
The Honorable Frank Scott, Mayor
Little Rock Historic District Commissioners
Jamie Collins, Director, Planning and Development
Brian Minyard, Office of Planning and Development
RE: HDC2019-023 – PLEASE DENY
Dear All,
Reminder of why I am opposed to HDC2019-203 development at 10 th and Rock Streets.
As a former member of the Little Rock Historic District Commission, I know the importance of
preserving the overall historic character of the MacArthur Park Historic District through the District’s design
factors for new construction, which were put in place in order to conform to the designs of the area’s historic
buildings. As a 40 year resident/property owner of one of Little Rock’s historic residential houses within the
Governor’s Mansion Historic District, I have seen firsthand how ill conceived land development can diminish
the unique character of Little Rock’s historic residential neighborhoods, because of failure to adhere to design
guidelines. This proposal is no exception, as it too is ill conceived.
The proposed residential complex for the 3 vacant lots facing Rock Street is ill conceived because it
does not follow the design factors in the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for new construction. For
instance, the complex does not conform to the scale and massing of historic residential buildings found in the
surrounding historic neighborhood.
2
The placement of the individual buildings on the three lots is inconsistent with the siting design
factor. The narrowest parts of all three lots fronts Rock Street. To conform to the historic alignment of houses
on such lots in the district, the front of the buildings should be sited toward Rock Street. Two of the proposed
buildings are not. In addition, all three buildings straddle property lines instead of being sited within their own
individual lot. The two south buildings straddle the same property line.
Mr. Heiple states in his March 6, 2020 cover letter the buildings are 3-stories tall. Historically, there
were no 3-story residential buildings constructed within the MacArthur Park Historic District. While some
residential buildings were 35 feet tall, historically they were only two and one-half stories tall, not three. Mr.
Heiple acknowledges the height of the 3-story buildings will have a negative impact for the district, as he states,
“the craftsman style design is intended to minimize [emphasis added] the impact of height of the 3-story
building.” The fact is, this design feature does not conform to the height design factor of the historic residential
buildings found in the surrounding historic neighborhood.
Another example of variances to the historic context relates to the design factor for roofs. Unlike the
area’s historic residential buildings, what is intended to be the “roofs” of the proposed buildings are a hybrid
cross between a roof and a dwelling unit. That is, half roof and half walls. The proposed “roofs” also have
balconies, which do not conform to the roof design of the area’s historic residential structures.
The use of 5 or in some cases, 8 balconies on one building are also design features that would have not
been seen on historic building in the District.
The repeated use of the combination of 3 glassed areas for windows and doors on the primary facades
was not seen historically in the District.
The use of brick and stucco are design features that are consistent with the materials used historically.
However, the use of what is referred to as limestone for primary facades of buildings is not similar to material
used traditionally in the District. The photo shows the “limestone” panel to be flat, grained like marble, and
uniformly oversized. Perhaps it’s better suited for counter tops.
In short, the overall design features of the buildings are intended to relate to each other, not to the
historic context of the neighborhood.
The proposed development does not conform to the area’s R4-A Low Density Residential zoning
requirement, which is for the development of duplex dwellings. A 15-unit residential complex, made up of one
3-unit building and two 6-unit buildings, is not low density and is an intrusion that does not comply with the
zoning requirement.
One can only conclude the developer is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.
Preventing this type of land development was the purpose for the new construction regulations. I
implore the Little Rock Historic District Commission to deny HDC2019-023 in order to protect the national
treasure that is the MacArthur Park Historic District.
Respectfully yours,
Dr. Danny R Cook
1700 S. Louisiana St.
Little Rock, AR 72206
danrcook@swbell.net
3
Sent from Mail for Windows 10