Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-06 staff reportDEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND i� DEVELOPMENT LITTLE ROCK 723 Nest Markham Street _.- HISTORIC 14 E € 6� Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 DISTRICT COMMISSION Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 f, STAFF REPORT ITEM NO. A. DATE: October 9, 2006 APPLICANT: Stephan McAteer, MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History ADDRESS: 503 East Ninth Street COA Fountain replacement REQUEST: PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION: The subject property is located at 503 East Ninth Street. The property's legal description is "That part of the northwest quarter of Township 1 North Range 12 west Section 11 lying east of the Quapaw Line and west of McAlmont Street & north of E 13th Street and that part of the southwest quarter of Township 1 North Range 12 west Section 2 lying east of the Quapaw Line and west of McAlmont Street & south of E 9th ST located in the City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas." The application area is a small portion of the park that is set back over 150 feet to the south of East 9th Street. �! -6; . sq o g. r �P�~ L{ e • -, k 7 r q; While the Arsenal Building is a contributing structure, there is no pictorial evidence of the Location of Project fountain that previously occupied the space. Local folklore states that a parks curator hand fashioned a fountain in this spot in the 1920's. PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE: On August 21, 2006, a COA was approved and issued to The Arkansas Korean War Veterans' Memorial Foundation for a revision to the memorial. On October 6, 2005, a COA was approved and issued to The Arkansas Korean War Veterans' Memorial Foundation for a memorial to be located to the east of the fountain's proposed location. The design guidelines do not specifically indicate any specific details when it comes to the construction of new fountains. The Design Guidelines state the following in the VI Design Guidelines for Site Design A. Landscape Features: Landscape features, that are original or historic (50 years of older), and that are important in defining the overall character of the property, should be identified, retained, and preserved. Some examples are sidewalks, curbs, and parking areas; brick or stone retainer walls; stepping blocks; furnishings such as lights, fences, or benches; landforms such as terracing; historic plant material, beds and planting areas; water features and garden art. Staff would interpret that historic fountains and pools would fall under this objective. ANALYSIS: MacArthur Park is home to numerous memorials predominantly located on the south and east sides of the complex. These memorials do not necessarily detract from the architectural significance of the MacArthur Park Military Museum because their individual locations do not obstruct its views from the north, northeast, or northwest. This fountain is proposed to be installed in the center of an existing pool that is located almost on axis to the north of the centerline of the Arsenal Building. There is no pictorial evidence of the fountain that previously occupied the space. Local folklore states that a parks curator hand fashioned a fountain in this spot in the 1920's The proposed fountain is a four tier cast aluminum fountain measuring 81" tall and 33" wide. It has a black -Verdi finish. The selection was made because it was felt that the fountain was compatible with the period of when the park was created (1893). Proposed fountain n NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application. 2 SEP-7-2006 09:39R FROM:MACRRTHUR MUSEUM OF 3764593 TO:3716863 P.3 MACARTHUR MUSEUM OF ARKANSAS MILITARY HTSTORY TO: ➢RIAN MINYARD FROM: srH1'FLkN MC 111F.R SUBJECT: MACARTIAUR PARK FOUN'YATN DATE: 9/7/2006 CC: The MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History proposes to put a cast aluminum Fountain in a sinail pond in front of thr museum, which is located in the historic Arsenal Building in MacArthur Park. '.Me pond is lamted approximately 300 feet north of the mu4cum, between the museum drive and 9'h St. The pond measures approximntoly 32 feat in length and 11 feet in width. The fountain would be placed in the middle of the pond, which has a depth of approximately five feet. The proposed fountain is a four tier, cast aluminum fountain measuring 81" in height, 33" in widrdi and weighs 200 pounds. It would have a black-verdi finish. 'X'his fountain was selected because it is Felt it would be most appropriate fur the time period in which the park was created (1993). In consultation with the Little Rock Parks Deputmcnt, it was determined this fountain would fit the existing space and plumbing. The museum has no photographs of any fountains which may have existing in the pond, although local folklore states that a parks ctuntor hand -fashioned a fountain in the 1920s. Cover letter from applicant SEP-7-2006 09:39A FROM:MRCRRTHUR MUSEUM OF 3764593 TO:3716063 P.2 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DF_VEL OPh1.13NT LITTLE ROCK ;+ HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334 DISTRICT Phone: (501) 3714790 Fax: (501) 399-3435 COMMISSION APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS Application Date: — _ 1, Date of Public Hearing: I day of i&&LC 200 (eat 626 " p,m. 2. Address of Property: `J 0 3. Legal Description of Property 4. JI1e14� '' / ��Ie- %�va7 Sa/-371a' 23 5, Owner's Agent: hanelFaxlE moil} "/- �, d b. Project Description (ar ditional pages may be added): 7xadr 11 r/' 1� �Ii.14r"f .�.P 7, Estimated Cost of Improvemenvi: 000 8. Zoning Classification: is the proposed change a permitted use? (5 No 9. Signature of Owner or Agent jlhruwnrr nlrt nenf N+ewd+orlMany elpenlvrryr++m, mp"rsrnrAg rhv o�+rr y1 the p+Jsrrnc�nMn�1. NO- -. Should there be [hand (design, malerials, size, ele.) from the approved COA. applicant shall vmiryCommission siuNand take appropriate actions, Approval by the Commission does trot excuse applicant or property €rom compliance with other applicable codes, nrdinattcesof poltelra of the city unttss %Iniedby the Ccmnliaiion or wiff. Responsibility for identlfyiieg ancll codes, ordi- nances or politics rests with the applicant, owner or agent, (This sec9ion to he completed by staff): Little Rock Historic District Commission Action ❑ Denied ❑ Withdrawn ❑ Approved ❑ Approved with Conditions ❑ See Attached Conditions Staff Signature: Dote:, Little Rock Historic District Commission # Department of Ph nning and Development 723 West Markham Street ♦ Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ♦ Phone: (501) 371-4790 t Fax: (501) 399-3435 Application STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions: 1. Obtaining a building permit. COMMISSION ACTION: October 9. 2006 Debra Weldon, of the city Attorney's office stated that notification was met as set by this Commission at the September 9, 2006 meeting. Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission. The Commissioners did not have questions of Staff at that time. Stephen McAteer, Director of the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History, made a short presentation. He stated that a fountain had been in place in the pool in the 1920's. At that time, a caretaker fashioned a fountain in place. Currently, a board member of his museum has made a donation to add a fountain to the pool. Currently, a single stream of water shoots up in the middle of the pool. That would be replaced with the fountain. A Victorian style fountain was chosen because that was the era of the creation of the park. There were no citizen comments. Commissioner Susan Bell brought photos of the site and noted that the pool was off center to the building. She added that adding a fountain to the center of the pool would add to the off center-ness of the pool. Commissioner Wesley Walls asked if there was plumbing in the pool. Mr. McAteer added that there was. Chair Carolyn Newbern referred to the Guidelines and noted that in the Federal period, buildings were a symmetrical form. She had handouts that she passed around and gave to Staff that showed the structure of landscapes with curved gardens and drives with axial lines which were symmetrical. Fountains were placed on axis lines. She continued that it bothers her to put a fountain off center. She added that a fountain would enhance the building and grounds. She asked Mr. McAteer if he had discussed moving the fountain and pool. Mr. McAteer said that the brickwork around the fountain predates the sidewalks which are exposed aggregate. The pool is historic. Originally, the Arsenal complex has 30 structures, now it only has one. He stated that there was no discussion on moving the pool and would be resistant to doing so. He did say that they would follow codes specified on the depth of the pool. He would fill it in to 30" to meet codes. Commissioner Walls said that it was a good point to make that typically it would be symmetrical and asked what it would be like to counterbalance the location of the fountain to the reality of the off centered pool. 5 Commissioner Kay Tatum asked if the pool was in good shape. Mr. McAteer said that it needed to be lined and to pour a foundation for the fountain. Commissioner Bell asked if there were to be changes to the brick or the sidewalks. Mr. McAteer said no. Chair Newbern stated that this pits a known historical structure against the Guidelines. The placement of the fountain in the center of the pool would further compound the earlier error of being off axis. She continued that most folks do not know that there is a pool, and that the fountain will add to the knowledge of a pool. She respected the financial aspect of the cost of moving of the pool. Mr. McAteer noted that this land is Parks and Recreation land and that he is before the committee because his board member donated money to install the fountain. The board member and himself were trying to make it look better. Commissioner Bell asked if the pool was filled. Mr. McAteer said it was not. Commissioner Walls talked about the off center fountain and the fact that the sidewalk, which is on axis, forms a datum line against which everything is judged. If the sidewalk were not there, this conversation would not be had. Chair Newbern stated that it was off just enough to be an issue. Staff Brian Minyard asked the applicant and the Commission if it made a difference if the fountain was shorter. Mr. McAteer stated that he was not wed to this fountain. Commissioner Walls asked Mr. McAteer what his view on the symmetry was. He answered that the building was the most important thing. It is an under utilized pool. It the pool is to be moved, it will not be the museum that does it. Chair Newbern asked if the fountain could be redesigned to have a different water feature that would be on axis. She suggested maybe an urn or something in character. Commissioner Walls said that this fountain is similar to other fountains in the area. It is formal in design, vertical in nature, and implies symmetry. Mr. McAteer commented that it is a rather long pool; 33 by 11 feet and that they can find an alternate fountain and come back to the Commission. Mr. McAteer said that the Arsenal building is just part of the park. This part of the park has been opened up (some removal of trees) and that the board member wanted to add something to this part of the park. Chair Newbern listed the options at this point: vote for approval, vote to deny it, or vote to defer the application for one month with exploration of alternatives. 2 Commissioner Tatum asked it the fountain could be self-contained and what if the fountain was placed outside of the pool. Mr. McAteer stated that it cold be self- contained. Chair Newbern said that the commission should defer to the city codes on the depth of the pool. Commissioner Walls stated that the pool is not centered, and that the pool world not be moved. He continued that he could not say for certain where the fountain should go. He continued that the likes the fountain and that the sidewalk reinforces the axis. Mr. McAteer asked to defer his application to bring back options to the Commission. Debra Weldon suggested the deferral. Commissioner Walls made a motion to defer for cause to consider alternate fountains. Commissioner Tatum seconded and the deferral was granted with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent for a period of one month. Boyd Maher, AHPP, stated that there were different periods of significance: the park creation, the arsenal building, the pool, etc. He asked why the fountain was Victorian. With all of the different periods of significance, with the suggestion of all of the other hardscape features as a guide, why not consider a contemporary fountain instead? Mr. McAteer stated that from the Commission, he was hearing the symmetry of the fountain and pool. STAFF UPDATE: November 13 2005 The applicant has provided an alternative fountain to amend the application. The proposed fountain is shown at the right. The fountain, which features an urn, is 33 inches high, and 27 inches in diameter. The pedestal measures 32 inches high and 17 inches square. It has a black-verdi finish and is made of cast aluminum. This fountain is proposed to be placed in the center of the pool. The Secretary of the Interior's Standard #2 states: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of historic materials or alterations of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. The Secretary of the Interior's Standard #5 states: Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved. During the last hearing, a discussion was started about the location of the pool and that it was not on axis of the building and further comments of moving the pool or greatly modifying it. This is in direct conflict with the Secretary of the interiors Standard #2. Staff interprets this standard to mean the Arsenal building as well as the grounds. This VA pool, while not specifically listed, dates from the 1920's. At eighty plus years old, it certainly is a historic structure in itself and merits protection by the commission. It was discovered by Staff that the location of the pool "straddles" the axis lines due north of the building and a line drawn from the intersection of Sherman Street and 9tn Street and the center of the building. If the building and grounds were designed in a strict Gothic layout, the pool would be on axis with the building, the building would be on axis with the centerline of Sherman Street, and the circular drive in front of the building would be a symmetrical arc on axis with the building, but that is not the case. The pool was added later. It is not the desire of Staff to have the pool moved, reshaped, or otherwise altered in a way that would detract from the historic nature of the pool. While the exposed aggregate concrete walks are not historic (at this time), they are part of the history of the pool. The application before the committee is the location of a fountain in the center of the pool. Alternate fountain Secretary of the Interior's Standard #9 states: ...related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment. Secretary of the Interior's Standard #10 stated: ...related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. It is Staff's opinion that the new fountain when placed in the center of the pool will fulfill Standard #9 in the fact that the pool had a fountain at one time in it's history, and that the fountain will be discernable from a historic fountain in the materials used and the finish of the fountain. It also fulfills Standard #10. The fountain will be placed on a concrete pedestal. The height of the pedestal will not exceed the finished level of the sidewalk surrounding the pool. The finish of the concrete should be smooth on sides and top. The size of the pedestal will be determined by the base of the fountain. The pool may need to have a new coat of plaster inside to make it watertight. White plaster would be appropriate. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of either alternative fountain. COMMISSION ACTION: November 13. 2006 A brief presentation was made to the Commission concerning the Staff Update by Brian Minyard. Staff checked with the building code section about the depth of the pool and this is not an issue. A swimming pool is a different matter. Commissioner Wesley Walls commented that there was no right or wrong on the fountain, there were so many structures missing in the park, and the original intent of the fountain is not discernable. There were no questions of Staff by the Commissioners. Chair Carolyn Newbern restated the possibility of suggesting a different design and that it designing the application should not be done by the commissioners. The Commission is to react to the application as filed. There was no historical evidence. Stephen McAteer stated that either of the two fountains would be acceptable to the donors. Commissioner Walls asked which fountain he preferred. Mr. McAteer commented that he would let the donor have the final decision. He did note that the pool had to be sealed. Chair Newbern asked if the Parks department would do the engineering for the pedestal. Mr. McAteer said yes. Chair Newbern asked if there was public comment about the application. There were none. Chair Newbern pointed to some historical evidence in the pool. She stated that she had revisited the situation. She acknowledged that the pool was a historic pool that dates to the 1920's. A lot of the planters and fountains in that era were handcrafted of quartz/rock combinations. She asked Mr. McAteer if he found anything that would fit into that time frame. Mr. McAteer said that he interpreted the pool at the turn of the century instead of the 1920's. The donors and he chose a Victorian era fountain. Chair Newbern stated that Secretary of the Interiors standards of not going to an earlier period when there is note evidence of that period. Commissioner Bell produced a photo of the 1920's fountain. She had found it in the Pulaski County Historical Review Volume 32, page 54, fall 1984. It appears to be a birdbath fashioned out of the quartz/rock combination. Chair Newbern exclaimed "Wow"! Chair Newbern stated that it looked more like a birdbath than a fountain. Commissioner Marshall Peters stated that fountain #2 would be more in keeping with the area and that it would not be possible to replicate the original fountain. Boyd Maher, AHPP, stated that now that you have pictorial evidence of what was there, you could duplicate it. When there is documentary evidence, then it is appropriate to attempt a reconstruction. 10 Chair Newbern stated different alternatives for the applicant: bring forth other options for the fountain design, have a vote to approve or deny the fountain as submitted or defer the application. Commissioner Peters made a motion to rebuild the fountain to be rebuilt as the photo if possible or go with the second fountain with staff approval of the final choice. Mr. Minyard asked to clarify the motion as to whether that motion gave staff approval to approve any fountain. Debra Weldon clarified that the applicant would have to request a deferral, not the commission asking for it. Commissioner Peters withdrew his motion. Mr. McAteer restated that this was not a museum project. A Board Member had donated the money to enhance that pool and there is a finite amount of money in the budget for this. Two fountains, one in the center of the pool and one in the center of the sidewalk were not in the budget. Chair Newbern asked the applicant if a deferral would allow the donor to explore the option of replicating the fountain. Mr. McAteer stated that he wanted an appropriate fountain, but was not interested in another months delay. Commissioner Bell stated that with the delay, the applicant might be able to find another fountain that was appropriate and maybe less expensive. Commissioner Peters asked if the applicant would verbally amend the application to add the option of replicating the existing fountain with staff having final approval. Debra Weldon, of the City's Attorney's office, stated that it was possible. Mr. McAteer amended his application to add the replication of the original fountain. That would be that all three fountains would be in the application. Mr. McAteer stated that the main issue of the last meeting was the location of the pond and that it was off centered of the building. That topic had not been discussed this evening. Commissioner Peters stated the pool should stand on it's own, (meaning that the pool location and size was not the issue.) Ms. Weldon stated that the second fountain is on the table for a vote. By submitting an alternate fountain, he amended their application and that second fountain is the one to consider when voting. If the applicant wanted to amend his application to include a handcrafted fountain, he would have to do so. Commissioner Walls asked if the commission could add a third option of the original fountain. A discussion followed. The result of the discussion was that fountain number two as shown in the staff update was the final amended fountain on the application. The applicant did amend his application to include the option of a handcrafted quartz rock fountain. Commissioner Peters made a motion to approve the application as amended to include as an option a recreation of the fountain as shown in the new evidence or the fountain 11 as submitted. Final design to be approved by Staff. Commissioner Walls seconded. The vote was 5 ayes, 0 noes and 0 absent. Staff is to provide a copy of the photo to the applicant. 12