HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2010-011 Staff Report, Item # B, Project Backfround and Description, Graphics and Photos,DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
;fig DEVELOPMENT
J+Il LITTLE ROCK
f3-1 HISTORIC 723 West Markham Street
J �r DISTRICT Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
�J Phone: 501 371-4790 Fax: 501 399-3435
�,�; = COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. B. _
DATE: September 9, 2009
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings
ADDRESS: Northwest Corner of 15th and Rock Street
COA 2 houses at 15th and Rock
REQUEST:
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1422 South Rock
Street. The property's legal description is Lot 7 of
Block 49 of the Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas.
This is a vacant lot.
This application is for a request to amend the
existing COA for the new infill construction of one
single -story detached home and one two-story
detached home with development of Lots 8 and 9 to
y� rif i � L� _ •�H
o�-
r
L"�`�
at
-
ry r-: i_
c 4?j
. P Anepg
w
•� N r
1 g
be reviewed at a later time. The single -story home Location of Project
is located on the west portion of the lot at the alley
and the two-story home is on the eastern portion of the lot at the street corner. This
application will review the single -story home first and then the two-story home.
Since the 2006 review of this site, there has been construction activity in the
neighborhood. In June 2006, permits were issued for two duplex structures at 1517 and
1521 Cumberland Street. In July 2006, a permit was issued for a single-family
residence at 1520 Rock Street. In September 2006, a permit was issued for a single-
family residence at 1518 Rock Street. In February 2007, three permits were issued for
single-family homes at 301, 305, and 309 East 15th Street.
This application will be required to go to the Planning Commission and the Board of
Directors for a Revocation of a PD-R for the three lots with a five-plex and creation of a
one lot PD-R for platting of the lots into two lots, both 50' x 70'. This platting will divide
-
ii ir_. ii_liL ii iii_i i_Uv i_i rii ii_i c iii ji;i I � _i�cii/a�,noiUib. i i i�: i ••✓-. 'v'e iii ivy i .. v iv r. ...-. ..�� •..•
r -
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On Jun 8, 2009, the Coriimission voted to reconsider the application for a single- story
and a two-story house on Lot 7 with changes of siding and windows on the two-story
house as described by the applicant.
On May 11, 2009, the Commission denied a COA for a single -story and a two-story
house on Lot 7.
On November 13, 2006, a COA was approved for Pace Wilson of Paul Page Dwellings
for a five-plex multifamily unit on lots 7, 8, and 9 of this block. That project also included
a zoning change to Planned Development - Residential (PD-R) that was approved by
the Board of Directors on November 28, 2006.
On January 7, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to Raymond Rogers for
demolition of a four-plex structure that was severely damaged by the 1999 tornado.
Several other structures in the 1300-1500 blocks of Rock Street were demolished
around that time because of severe damage by the 1999 tornado.
PROPOSAL: The applicant has proposed building two houses on the southernmost lot
and split the lot into two building lots. These three lots ca. 1900 had a brick C ral Ls i iai i
two-story four-plex at 1422 and the Warner House at 1414 Rock Street that was a
I 11 J 'J'_-. TLC-�.:... .. • ��.•. � +{9!1
Queen Anne two-story house with wood siding. I here a was a uunun iy in the rear of a Ic
lots that is not pictured in the 1978 survey. The use is unknown but it appears that it
a d, l
FOURTEPWT14 Fps" FN"
� UP
FiFreeuru P-IF7EEM"
low w s
elxnauru u .°+ r,Kresrerx
i::E �7'
-v
W
O
cc
moo,
LU
U
;
®�
U
a�
El
E
K L GATSON BATES
I
TW
{�
Z
7
116QA'II 1
6TH
1
+
'
I
�
�
d
Building footprints from 1978 Survey Current building footprints from GIS
2
was garages. The building straddled the property lines. The site of the application is
shown in the center of the graphics below.
The south side of this block of 15th Street had five houses that faced the street in the
1978 survey, all on the south side of the street. All five have been removed but the
western three have been replaced with different single-family structures. To the east on
15th, more houses face the street instead of the north -south streets. To have houses
that face 15th is appropriate for the neighborhood.
Alternatively, if you look at the houses and carriage houses in the neighborhood, it is
typical to have the main house in a rectangular solid facing the named streets (Rock,
Cumberland, etc) with a square carriage house of one or two stories in the back. See
the above graphic "Current building footprints from GIS" that illustrates the point. In this
proposal, the square structure is on the street corner while the rectangular structure is
at the back of the lot. This is opposite of the traditional pattern.
' Ufa a as; A F►Ii � � sT�Tw�i►T��w +� � OZO � NO
■ �'►� ■ I A —
X E
i
Elevations of both of the houses
On the above "Site Plan for the two houses" graphic, please ignore the proposed bus
stop at the lower right of the graphic. That is not to be built by the applicant and is not
part of the application. This would be a separate application by CATA.
3
SINGLE STORY HOME-
.. f l lve I II TI k )U1 I_; 1_/l l 1 /1 I.11, 1.1 rii_ll llll-,rll ll_II I Iti II_II r 11i iiVll -1 ��)i V l il_;i ltir' I{_I I )I_ III iiii 1_Ir i
+h .. �.,.. +.. nr%rF;..n .4 +4... I..+ D+ +6. ..
house will face 16th Street and will be a two -bedroom two -bath structure without
covered parking. This structure is similar to the previous application. The south
elevation has been i recessed iii i le rniduie approxirriateiy two feet and the window
arrangement has been changed with the addition of windows in the bedrooms.
Plan of One -Story house
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
The Guidelines state on page 63:
"New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not
disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the
neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they
should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished
from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through
application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread,
vergeboards, dentils, fish -scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are
rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too
M
small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be
avoided.)
"New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other
outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be
simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building;
should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead
of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in -
design, form, materials, and roof shape.
"1. Building Orientation:
The facade of the new building should be aligned with the established
setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood
should be upheld."
The footprint of approximately 48 x 20 feet is similar to other primary structures in
the area. There are two bays on the north side of the building that extend
approximately four feet to the north. A change to this application is that the middle
third of the building has been recessed approximately two feet.
"2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures
in the area. This includes height and width."
The front of the house will face 15th Street. The house is proposed to sit 15' off the
alley way as required by code. The front yard setback will be 15' also, the minimum
required by code. The height of the proposed building is approximately 25 feet, which is
less than the buildings to the immediate west and southwest. Setbacks vary in the
district, but overall, the scale and the setbacks of the building are compatible with the
other smaller residences in the district.
"I Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those
used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of
entrances, windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also
consider heights (foundation,
floor -to -ceiling, porch height and
depth.)"
The house, as described by the
applicant, is a "Neotrot" (a new
rendition of a dog trot.) The house is
basically a rectangular solid parallel to
the street with two bay extensions to
the rear of the structure. The
15th Street Fagade (south)
bedrooms are to each end of the structure with the public areas to the center. The
_. _Y �. Lui v s 1; 1vvvvvv�. is l.ivi .i ..:• i.n. —� y' ...... .. . .._ _ _
cPn i0! irp is Chown annrnx6—)1-k/ ini it ippi T Ir1P
Roof: The 8/12-pitched roof is compatible with the surrounding structures. The
cry �,rl�inn ri iI1P. r��r it [1l rill`? iri illy i �i f1V(_i iii iii111 iflf Ili dili(i lid N i)lii �.l1 lid. vJ 1. ii�Ji
. , ..1 _ �.._.. ... e_:: _..0 1. ::,:._ J: - - r- =
typical of homes in the area. These bays will be on the interior of the lot and would
normally be marginally visible from the street if the lots to the north were developed. In
the cover letter dated June 7, 2009, it states that a pellet stove may be installed, if
desired by homeowner. No details were given on the location of the chimney or details
of it
Windows: The applicant provided a south elevation for the structure and a floor plan.
No elevations were provIU eU IUI the east, west al lU Ilo rt I elevatlol s. I Ile wII IUV Vv VVUI IL
is derived from the floor plan alone. The outer windows shown on the south elevation
are pairs of windows, which are appropriate for the district. The center windows facing
15th Street are not typical for this area. The window(s) have nine panes and are floor to
ceiling windows. Historic homes in the area and new homes that do not disrupt the
pattern of the neighborhood have more than one window per side of the structure. The
current application has added windows to the side elevations of the house (east and
west). They now show three windows on each side, two separate windows in the
bedrooms and one in each bathroom. The rear of the house has the window
arrangement changed slightly with one less widow in the utility room. Windows are
shown in the kitchen on the north wall, but it is unclear exactly where the placement is
to be. However, when development happens to the i iorti I of ti le site, it will be hidden
from view of the street.
Foundation: The new building will have a raised foundation; it will be 18" above grade
at the highest corner of the lot. This will result in an 18-24" height at the front door or
approximately three steps. The floor to ceiling height and the foundation level appears
to be compatible with the district.
"4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces
in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in
appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their
appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples
of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the
crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal
roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match
mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or
composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim
around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave
depths, etc.)"
Siding: The horizontal siding of cypress shiplap siding will have a 6 1/4" reveal.
will be trim around the windows, doors, eaves, and corner boards, which is typical
cypress siding will either be stained a
soft neutral color or it will be allowed to
weather to a natural grey color.
Roof: The roof is proposed to be M-
Cor Galvalume Plus 29 gauge by US
Steel Co. This is a corrugated ribbed
metal roof with zinc coating similar to
the old style tin roofs. While the roofing
material may have been used on
secondary structures in the area, it is
not compatible with the district for a
primary structure.
Photo of Galvalume roof.
There
. The
Windows: The windows in the house will be by Best Built, a wood window with a metal
cladding. The windows will be double hung and casement awnings. The color of the
cladding is rustic red.
Foundation: The materials of the foundation or underpinning have not been submitted
to the Staff.
Landscape: The sidewalk shown is on the street side of the property line, at the
location typical for this neighborhood. This is shown on the "Site Plan" graphic on page
three. Street trees are shown as well as other trees and shrubs on the property. The
parking areas will be to the rear and side of the house accessed off the alley. The
Elevation of proposed fence
+E• s-
t. r
v�
Gravel parking pad
7
parking pad will be gravel with a wood boarder. There will be no covered parking, only
t !-. !-; i i t :h � rf r'l i t i �. . ll . -I .1, . T!\
acr.ommnnare Ina .slope nt me pro inn. i ne tans is to he inr_.ar_ed on the orloinai
property line only between the two lots.
TWO STORY HOME:
PROPOSAL: The second portion of this application is for a two-story house to be built -
on the eastern portion of the lot at the northwest corner of 15th and Rock Street. The
house will face 15th Street and will be a three -bedroom two and one -half -bath structure
without covered parking.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
The Guidelines state on page 63:
"New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not
disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the
neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they
should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished
from historic buildings. (Note: A new building becomes too imitative through
application of historic architectural decoration, such as gingerbread,
vergeboards, lentils, fish -scale shingles, etc. These kinds of details are
rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too
small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be
avoided.)
"New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other
outbuildings, should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be
simple in design but reflect the general character of the primary building;
should be located as traditional for the neighborhood (near the alley instead
of close to or attached to the primary structure); and should be compatible in
design, form, materials, and roof shape.
"I. Building Orientation:
The fagade of the new building should be aligned with the established
setbacks of the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood
should be upheld."
The footprint of approximately 28 x 28
feet is similar to other primary
structures in the area. The house
features an inset porch on the
southeast corner. Historically, houses
faced the 1400 block of Rock Street,
not the side streets. The lots were
originally platted so that the front of the
houses would face Rock. With this
house being square, it would be
possible to run the sidewalk to Rock
Street instead of 15th and have a Rock
Street address.
1422 Rock Street from the 1978 survey
"2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures
in the area. This includes height and width."
The front of the house will face 15th Street. The house is proposed to sit 15' off both
Rock and 15th Street property lines as required by code. The height of the proposed
building is approximately 31 feet. With the bulk of the structure and the flat roof, the
building's mass may appear larger than the surrounding structures.
15th Street Facade (south)
North (rear) Facade
Rock Street (East) Facade
West Facade
"I Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those
used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of
X
entrances. windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. . Also
rN !� � r. !-+ t n % ! �-. N .� _ i j �. ✓ _ _ "� 1� ?- n r- ,-T
The house, as described by the applicant, is a modern interpretation of a "Four Square.
The house is a square cube with a flat roof with a corner -recessed porch on the corner
_i,l;lil i tl jl`' ii lC!v e_-i:lcii CIT / IC_i.i. _ eeI�S WiIf.I_l l-a ,nr, jrI.ii._
e
e�f?e 1/(.fs � :��n v�.r`� I
bedrooms and two baths on the top floor and public living areas with a half bath on the
bottom floor. The applicant describes this house as a "modern four -square home."
Roof: The flat roof is not compatible with the structures in the District. There are
structures with flat roofs as indicated by the letter 11F" in the graphic below. However,
these structures are multi -family structures, offices, or renovated school buildings that
are now multifamily. These flat roof structures are not single-family homes. The "M"
_L_1:__ : C_-1L_ _J -L _I11_- %]:I1_ K11____
notation Is !UI Lilt:! I l lal lsa! U I UU! U! U IC V !lld ! ld! [ U.
The house is referred to as a "modern Four- ""`�``TM�q
Square" by the applicant. The room ryl,
arrangement and the square footprint fits theMAO
definition of a historic foursquare. A Field
Guide to American Houses by Virginia and �^r� caw
MacArthur. Park Mialork Diatrlet
Lee McAlester states that "This subtype, I:; aG6
which is sometimes called the Prairie Box or�� °
American Foursquare, has a simple square .
or rectangular plan, low-pitched hipped roof, �� c°���
and symmetrical facade." This structure, as ray : o uo z3 s°
proposed, fits their definition of a foursquare
II I1 sILG, Ljulr\, al llu ii class VVIti I 111U UA1_,UpUU1 i U1 V �eF1 0iia . j
the roof. The cover letters states that he Locations of flat roof structures
11will not mimic the hip roof of the past, but instead use a flat -membrane roof to reflect
heat, cool the city and use it's gradient behind the parapet will to collect rainwater for
the future."
The MacArthur Park Historic District has Foursquare houses. Most notable are the
Johnson Houses at 514, 516 and 518 East Eighth Street. In the nomination form to
place these structures on the National Register, it states, "Each house is a variation of
the American Foursquare design... Following the Foursquare concept each house is
two-story, square, and capped with a hipped roof." The house at 1324 South Rock is
another Foursquare house with steeper hip roof. 1008 South Cumberland is yet
another foursquare house in the district. Each of these foursquares shares the typical
hip roof. There are multiple (fifty plus) structures with hip roofs in the District, of various
styles, ranging from the Colonial Revival to Queen Anne to the Ranch. A hip roof for a
single-family residence is appropriate for the district.
Windows: The window pattern on the structure has been changed for this application
but the windows shown on the elevation of this building are not totally incompatible with
10
the district. The windows appear to be a combination of four -foot square windows, two -
foot square windows, and two -foot by four -foot windows either horizontally or vertically
mounted. No dimensions were supplied with the application, so all are approximate.
Some of the windows are ganged together, which is typical of the area.
The 15th Street (front) facade of this house features a recessed corner porch on the
southeast corner with a two-story window to the left. The large mass of windows in the
last application has been broken into three sets of windows. They appear to be two
sets of four ganged windows that would be roughly 8' x 6' total area and one 2' x 4' orrr
the second floor. The windows located on the second floor above the porch have been
increased in size to two four -foot square ganged windows that are more compatible with
the area. The Rock Street (east) facade features the other view of the recessed porch
and windows over the porch that mirrors the south elevation. In addition, on the east
elevation, there are four other sets of windows varying from roughly 8'x4' down to a two
foot square. The north elevation has three sets of ganged windows while the west
elevation has three sets of windows and the back door.
Foundation: The new building will have a raised foundation; it will be 18" above grade
at the highest corner. This will result in an 18-24" height at the front door or
approximately three steps. The floor to ceiling height and the foundation height appears
to be compatible with the district.
"4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces
in the area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in
appearance to those used historically. New materials may be used if their
appearances are similar to those of the historic building materials. Examples
of acceptable new building materials are cement fiber board, which has the
crisp dimensions of wood and can be painted, and standing seam metal
roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match
mortar and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or
composite materials, not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim
around doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave
depths, etc.)"
Siding: The siding material has been changed to a "Hardie Board in a panel and lap
display." This fiber -reinforced cement board has been used on other new construction
in the District, either as trim boards or siding. It will be painted a soft green color.
Roof: The roof is proposed to be flat with a white membrane covering manufactured by
GAF 45 mil thick. A small parapet wall will prevent view of the roof. The material used
11
may be appropriate for the area for rear porches and the like. but the flat roof is not
Windows: The windows in the house will be by Best Bilt by National Home Center, a
wood window with a metal cladding. Some of the windows are static, some with awning
�„ F ,. I .J r r. The ., I C l :. ,. ,. I .. A A :...... 1„ � ._ d L. � _ : d: _ l"� � _ J ._ J _
i=.nJe!ilClll i-ir J[!VC!J. ! IIC l_VIV1 VI lllt' l_,!dUl_i!r,g !I�c. nr) il�ri! j Iecif:r�l i_,! {_� �niil!�]{_)1ni� ill
new homes can be appropriate to the area.
Foundation: No materials have been submitted to the Staff.
Landscape: The sidewalk shown is on the street side of the property line, at the
location typical for this neighborhood. This is shown on page 3 in the graphic "Site
Plan." Street trees are shown as well as other trees and shrubs on the property. The
parking areas will be to the side of the house accessed off 1 5th Street. The parking pad
will be gravel with a wood boarder. There will be no covered parking, only the pad. The
fencing will be approximately four feet high with some additional height to accommodate
the slope of the ground. The fence is to be located originally on the property line only
between the two houses. See earlier graphics for fencing details on page 7.
There is a "Garden" shown to the northwest of the structure enclosed by a fence. This
fence is not part of the application. It will feature raised garden beds.
The site plan and the perspective graphic show a patio located on the south side of the
structure surrounded by a fence. The elevations shown and the floor plan are not the
same to show where the door is to this enclosed area.
Summary Analysis of both houses: The Guidelines state on page 63 that:
New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not
disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the
neighborhood. Although they should blend with adjacent buildings, they
should not be too imitative of historic styles so that they may be distinguished
from historic buildings.
Staff has concerns over the design of the two structures proposed. On the one story
house, the roofing materials chosen and the south fagade center windows. If a stove or
fireplace were installed in the structure, details would need to be provided to Staff of the
chimney construction and placement. On the two-story house, the flat roof is not
compatible with the district. The window placement, quantity, and size are not totally
incompatible with the district. With modifications, the structures could be such that they
"maintain, not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the
neighborhood." As submitted, Staff feels that they do not meet the Guidelines.
12
The applicant has asked for the fence approval only between the two houses. In an
effort to save applications for fencing by the perspective new owners, Staff would
recommend that the Commission review all fencing as shown on the site plan.
To make the structures compatible with the district, Staff proposes the following
changes to the two-story house:
1. Install a minimum of a 4/12 hip roof on structure with an overhang of 24-30".
2. Roof material shall be asphalt shingles or standing seam metal roof.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there
were five letters of support of the application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the changes were made as described above, the Staff
could recommend approval of the two houses, but with the flat roof as proposed on the
two-story house, Staff must recommend denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 13. 2009
Brian Minyard, Staff, noted for the record that Commissioner Randy Ripley has removed
himself from the dais to the citizen's area of the room. Mr. Minyard made a presentation
to the Commission. He noted that all notices were given to the property owners for this
item.
During the presentation of the one story home, Chairman Marshall Peters asked him to
clarify that the windows that are not typical for the area were indeed the ones in the
center of the building in the recess. Chairman Peters asked about the height of the
fence. Mr. Minyard stated that a four -foot high fence is compatible with the guidelines
for the rear of a property.
Mr. Minyard stated that at the time of the distribution of the packets to the Commission,
there were five letters of support for the application. Since that time, the number of
letters, emails, and phone calls has increased to 7 in support, 10 in opposition, and 2
neutral.
Chairman Peters asked if Staff had samples of the materials on the structures. Mr.
Minyard commented that he had a sample of the Hardie Board for the two-story house.
Chairman Peters also asked what the height of the parapet was.
Page Wilson gave a letter from Chan Tucker in support of the application to Staff. He
introduced Rick Redden and Liz Hamilton from AMR Architects.
Commissioner Bob Wood asked Page Wilson what the relationship was between AMR
architects and Paul Page Dwellings. Mr. Redden responded that they were the
architects for Paul Page Dwellings LLC and spoke of past projects with him. He
continued about the diversity of the population downtown and who the market would be
13
for the new houses. He said that they designed the structures for that market_ The
.. ..
-4 1
.... iL•: V'•iu.. ..:�.;,luIIVV i'v ulI uUiii,uiiulcai Jclliiii,:iiirii 1 1_-'v`v:kii''. � _ _ ji :Jri: ._.._,.� �.,..
�c� limp R fr. .,4 QrI! I na
Mr. Redden then went into some detail about the changes to the two-story house. The
1_ I I A ��� ��.-. �i l.. I I:__ LL 1 1
I will Have �i-`+ battells Over the panel siding to add texture to the structure. i-ie
commented the flat roof was the most controversial portion of the application but the
scales should not overpower the other buildings. Commissioner Wood stated that he
drove over to the site and that there was a flat roof at 16th and Rock.
Mr. Wilson commented on the sustainability issues in architecture. The neighborhood
people do not distinguish between multi family and single family and roof styles. He
commented itented that they wanted bodies in the area. He continued with price per square
foot and overall prices for houses that would sell.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if there were elevations for the east and west
facades of the one story house. Mr. Wilson said he did not provide elevations. He
continued that the siding was cypress. Mr. Minyard interjected and referred the
commission to page 9 of the Staff report and pointed out the locations of the additional
windows.
Commissioner Wiedower also commented on the pellet stove chimney. Mr. Wilson said
that it vented to the side of the structure and would probably not install it. A discussion
continued about venting through the roofs for all utilities. He amended his application to
remove the pellet stove.
RA
- 1A/'I__.- ducted
I 1 1 1_•� district
1 had
r--.--
M . Wilson conducted an Internet search and found a historic district that had iOur
square houses in Indiana with flat roofs and that there are lots of roof types on four
squares. Commissioner Wood commented that it was a generous definition of a four
square.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the rain collection aspect of the house. She
asked if it was to be visible from the street. Mr. Redden said that it would be located on
the north (rear) of the house.
Mr. Minyard asked what the height of the parapet was. Mr. Wilson responded' that it
was between 12 and 20". Chairman Peters asked what the height of the two-story
house was. Mr. Redden said it was 10' ceilings on the first floor, 12" for floor joists, 9'
ceilings on the second, with some foundation on the height. He said it was more like 26
feet tall on the tall side.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if he was going to be responsible for the trees between
the sidewalk and the street. Mr. Wilson said he has worked with the city on tree
plantings or with Tree Streets. He will not do a complete landscape on the houses; the
owners will do some.
14
Chairman Peters asked if submissions were made on materials. Mr. Minyard said that
he had a piece of Hardie panel to be used on the two-story house. Chairman Peters
asked about the siding on the two-story house. Commissioner Wiedower asked if it
would be screwed on or nailed. Mr. Wilson said that it would be nailed. Mr. Redden
responded that the battens would be 1 x 4" pieces.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the fence on the patio of the two-story house
southwest corner. Mr. Redden said that they would have that patio and a door will go to
the patio. Chairman Peters asked about the fence in front of the patio, how high would
it be? He continued that the guidelines state that fences in front of buildings should be
no more that 3 feet tall. Mr. Redden said that it would be four feet above the finished
first floor level but three feet would work. Mr. Minyard added that given the foundation
height of two feet that would make the fence 6 feet tall from the ground. Chairman
Peters asked about the height of the foundation. Mr. Redden said he needed 18" clear
under the joists, and the finished floor would be potentially 2'-6" out of the ground. He
said that he would cut it into the ground some on the upper side. It would have three
steps on the porch.
Mr. Wilson said that with the raised foundation, it would be converted to a grey water
system easily and was part of his original budget.
Commissioner Wiedower then commented on the sidewalk to Rock Street from the two-
story house. Mr. Wilson said that if the connection needed to be made that he could do
it. He spoke about corner porch and said the walk to Rock was fine.
Chairman Peters asked for comments from the citizens.
David Prater, of Rock Street, supports the growing community. He said that Page
Wilson has done a great job in the area and he supports the application.
Charles Marratt commented that the HDC has a tough decision to make and gave some
history. He spoke of a two-story single family and multi family structures in town that
have flat roofs. He thinks that population is declining in the area. He said that the
commission needs to support page Wilson.
Deanna Jones lives and works downtown and is an interested young person that would
be interested in buying one of the houses. She lives on Rock Street and supports the
application.
Steve Stewart lives to the west of the site in a new house. He agrees with what has
been said earlier and he supports the application.
15
Robert Traylor owns two of the lots at 14th and Rock Street. He supports the
to hp Inr:?tpri nn hip Info "rI ca\ic Thp area nppric r kir/ rcit\/ nn\,n/ ..
Kate East says that she lives in a flat roof house in Hillcrest. She finds the home
.J hl.. /'.. .-.-. Iar .1 �J ih b n} Lnr-.b PlicI. fJ.. .J .J .. y.'_ .�I-. - ter- .� 1
UrGslraUlU. U'om�IJ.7iUHUi VVUUU IJIGIItI GU LI IaL 1\G Le LG.SL 1.5 \IUf\ I\GUUGII J UCfUgI IICI CII IU
works for AMR.
Mason Ellis lives in the Cliffs Condos, rides his bike in the neighborhood, and likes
diversity of architecture. He thinks the houses fit into the neighborhood.
Keith Hall, 423 East 8th, spoke in opposition to the application. He appreciates the
architectu al merit of the home and the desire .for diversity of people in lI the area. H.e
thinks the house is out of place, like zebra among thoroughbred horses.
Jana Fritz, of 618 Ferry, spoke in opposition. She moved here for the quality of the
architecture of the neighborhood. She claimed that the structures are not the diversity
of the neighborhood; it is the people that provide the diversity.
Angela Murray, owner of 1400 Rock and 1401 Cumberland, spoke in opposition to the
application. She likes the house but it does not fit. She spoke of her previous
applications in front of the Commission and having to remove six inches off the top of a
fence, at a cost to her to conform. She continued that the design of the house in the
r:_1_: _i ll: L L r r-,..•J that
this
house
Ir 1_LI:�L r„... .., IL
Uistrict Is appalling to her and is afraid drat this house would establish precedence. Il
would be a tragedy if this was allowed.
Karol Zoeller, resident of 500 9th street, stated that she had been if front of the
commission before also. She moved to the neighborhood because of the protection.
Diversity is great, but not in this district. She is concerned that the district could lose tax
credits and lose the district status. She continued that it would not be okay inside the
district, but outside the district, it would be great.
Jeff Horton, Herrin Horton Architects, stated a discussion about the threshold
percentage of contributing structures and that any new structure would affect the
percentages. Mr. Minyard added that all new buildings would affect the total percentage
of the contributing and non-contributing structures.
/ 1_1 that
L front
r LL_ r__ 1L_ rl_1 r l
Mr. V�lllsofl Stale l al he was here ill Irolll of llle l:olllli115sloll IUI IIIC Ilat loot. e
respects their opinions, but they will have a difference of opinion.
The commission started discussing the item. Commissioner Wiedower commented that
she has gone back and forth on the issue. She respects the importance of the
guidelines and understands the guidelines are guidelines and not regulations. She
continued that this is an extraordinary situation; one that the tornado took out many
16
houses in the area. She has gone over the details of the projects and it has been
challenging for her. She is in support of the project.
Commissioner Wood spoke of several issues. He visited the site and reread the
guidelines to preserve and protect historic structures. He stated that the commission
was to preserve and protect historic structures but there were none in this area. He
cited the enabling legislation's finding and purpose that states to "stabilize and improve
property values". He stated that when the commission applies the literal guidelines to
an area like this, the guidelines are very literal on our part.
The difference is the separate character, not for new structures in areas of lots of
buildings. There is nothing there. Everything will be new. The guidelines state that the
new buildings should not mimic the historic ones. He continued that he felt that the
commission was not obligated to literal guidelines for concentrated areas. He thinks it
would be misguided to apply the guidelines in this situation. He is in support of the
application.
Chairman Peters stated that while the area was devastated in he 1999 tornado, and the
entire area needs help to come back, if the application was split, he could go along with
the smaller house. However, he cannot support the two-story house. He continued that
the structure has too many variances from the guidelines needed to pass. He restated
that with only three people voting, all three must vote yes to get the item approved. He
said that there might be a chance to have another commissioner at the next meeting.
Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer to August 10, 2009 meeting.
Commissioner Wood questioned if it was a majority of the Commission or a majority of
those present. After a lengthy discussion, it was noted the bylaws state that it is a
majority of the entire commission.
Mr. Minyard referred back to a point that the Chairman said. If the application was split,
there would be a possibility for a approval of the single story house. He asked the
Commission if it would likely change the vote and asked the applicant if he was willing
to amend his application to split the application. He continued that he thought that the
separation of votes could possible lead to resolution of the item tonight. He added that
the deadline for filing of the Commission was last Friday and that it was not guaranteed
that a new commissioner would be appointed in time for the next meeting. He also
continued that if amendments to the application was made, that a vote could be taken
tonight. However, it was noted that the applicant did have the right to ask for a deferral
to next month's meeting.
Discussion started again on the structure and Chairman Peters stated that there must
be a hip roof on the structure. He again asked if Mr. Wilson would consider separating
the item. Mr. Wilson said he would like to keep them together.
17
+', ri, rn fpn4 ff Li
Commissioner Wiedower asked Ms. Weldon about the section of the bylaws that
concerns ci ai Igii lg the bylaws. MS.. Weldon of I reSNui deb that the Coiii II I IISS101 i CO . uld not
change what a majority of the commission means because the majority vote of the
entire commission is set by ordinance. The commission does not have the authority to
change city ordinance or state law. r
Chairman Peters stated that the board and batten does not fit the mass and scale.
Even with a lot of missing structures, he does not believe that this structure meets the
aU! le IrleS wiL iflaSS Or Scale. e continue t! aL !!e '�^�an,� peO,e ;IVirIC; uvVdi!LGW.!,
everybody wants people living downtown. He stated that the structure did not fit the
guidelines. Mr. Wilson suggested that if the grid bothered Chairman Peters, he could
change it to 4 — 8" lap Hardie board siding. He said that he would really like to keep the
flat roof. He continued that he could change to windows to make them appropriate to
the area, and not group them like they did on this application, he would promise to bring
the new window design into Staff or to the Commission. Mr. Wilson said that the plank
siding would come pre -painted, as would the metal siding. It was a cost savings or no
exterior painting. He said that hopefully he would be back to develop the two other lots
to the north and that he would make the other structures mimic the houses and
apartments to the north and scale up to the other houses.
Mr. Redden stated that the board and batten was to add texture and details of the area.
Chairman Peters reinforced the fact that the while the architecture is attractive; this is
not appropriate for the historic district. Mr. Wilson offered that they could put it in a lap
siding and keep the flat roof, but he is hesitant to split the application because the two
go together. Chairman Peters asked him why not split the application and start on the
other one tomorrow. Mr. Wilson said that he thought he could sell the three bedroom
before he could sell the two -bedroom single story house.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that it is what it is. She is anxious about trying to make
it mimic more historic details. She continued that there is an atmosphere downtown of
energy and building. If this structure were anywhere else in the district, she would
oppose it. But is this better than a vacant lot?
Mr. Minyard reiterated the amendments to the application thus far: Take out the
chimney on the one story house, keep the fence on the south side of the two story
house to three feet from the ground, and he is tentatively changing the siding on the two
story house. Discussion occurred about the height of the fence in the front.
Commissioner Wood said that he thought Chairman Peters had his heart is in the right
place, but Commissioner Wood has reservations of applying guidelines to 21 st century
architecture. Commissioner Wood is hesitant to try to modify the structures to "shoe
horn" it into a particular style.
Ms. Weldon understands that this is a very difficult decision, but she felt that she was
not doing her job if she did not read this into the record. Stating the State Legislation,
the commission, ...shall take. no action except for the purpose of preventing the
construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving, or demolition of buildings,
structures, or appurtenant fixtures in the historic district that are obviously incongruous
with the historic aspects of the district. She wanted to clarify that since that
Commissioner Wood thought this only applied to historic structures. It is applied to the
District as a whole. She admitted that that part of the district may be able to be
distinguished separately from the rest of the district.
Chairman Peters asked that the applicant ask to defer his application. Mr. Wilson asked
to keep his two houses on one vote. Mr. Minyard clarified that after approval of the
item, he must go to the Planning Commission for approval of the PRD and then to the
Board of Directors. A deferral of the item may cost the applicant six weeks of time. Mr.
Wilson asked to defer to the next meeting.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to defer this application to August 10, 2009.
Commissioner Wood seconded the motion and the motion was approved with a vote of
3 ayes, 1 recusal and 1 open position.
STAFF UPDATE: August 3 2009
The Planning commission considered this item's lot split and Revised PRD at its July
23, 2009 hearing. It was placed on consent approval and was approved 9 ayes and 2
absent. The item will not be forwarded to the Board of Directors until the HDC approves
the COA.
The City ordinance states in Section 23-120 General Criteria (f): "Generally, new
construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and
area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not limited to the factors listed for
alterations in paragraph {subsection} (d)". Those factors are: "Siting, Height, Proportion,
Rhythm, Roof area, Entrance area, Wall areas, Detailing, Fagade, Scale, and Massing."
The Ordinance mirrors State law Chapter 14-172-208 that states: "No building or
structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps, and paving or other
appurtenant fixtures, shall be erected, altered, restored, moved or demolished within an
historic district until after an application for a certificate of appropriateness as to exterior
architectural features has been submitted to and approved by the historic district
commission." These two quotes from the ordinance and state statute demonstrate that
the structure must be reviewed to the same criteria as modifications to historic buildings.
19
Ao,artments at 1400 Rock
Fri �... .:S-—
_ - �.ie7
1421 Cumberland Street with 1417 in rear
4 iip l4A 00
House at 1410 Rock Street
1417 Cumberland Street
Above are photos of adjacent buildings. The next closest house to the site proceeding
north is 1410 Rock Street, is a one story hipped with cross gables Queen Anne
Victorian house. North of that, at the intersection of 14th and Rock, is a two-story gable
on hipped roof craftsman two-story apartment building with prominent east facing two-
story front porch. Across the alley at 1417 Cumberland is a two story side gabled
Queen Anne with two front facing clipped gables. Also shown above, is a side view of
1421 Cumberland that is a new infill development duplex. As these photos show, the
houses that are in close proximity to the proposed site, a mix of multi family and single
family, all have pitched roofs; three of them are modified hip roofs. To blend with the
existing neighborhood and area of influence would imply a pitched roof be installed on
the two-story house. Staff's recommendation of a 4/12 pitched roof would be a similar
pitch to the house located at 1400 Rock Street.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: If the changes were made as described above, the Staff
could recommend approval of the two houses, but with the flat roof as proposed on the
two-story house, Staff must recommend denial.
20
COMMISSION ACTION: August 10, 2009
There was a discussion as to whether to hear the item or not since there was not a new
commissioner. Debra Weldon stated that when there is a new commissioner present,
the public hearing would need to be held. Chairman Peters commented that it would
need to be from square one. There was also a discussion on whether or not this was
an automatic deferral or not since only three commissioners were available to vote on
this item. After discussion, it was decided that this discussion would not count against
his total number of deferrals.
It is noted for the record that Commissioner Randy Ripley removed himself from the
dais.
Rick Redden stated that he wanted to understand and to listen to the commission to
help resolve the issues. He spoke of innovative programs in other cities to help
developers build houses in downtown areas. He thinks that the roof is the major issue
on the structure. He spoke of the need to densify the area and that it is best to develop
property when the infrastructure is already in place. He continued with a comment on
artificial boundaries placed around areas (in reference to historic district boundaries).
He continued that he added sunscreens to the building. He would like to see more
landscaping requirements added to the guidelines.
Chairman Peters stated that his interpretation of the guidelines, in reference to the
schools, classes, etc. that he has attended over the last seven years, that he agrees.
with what Staff has written in the report. The city of Little Rock paid the Heiple
Wiedower firm to draw an infill plan. A single-family structure should have roof like most
of the district, not what is outside of the district. What is outside the district is not his
concern; his only concern is within MacArthur Park. He agrees with Staff's report on
roof type, design, scale, etc.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower said that this item was a challenge for all of the
commissioners. The vacant lots have been a mitigating situation. She has spent a lot
of time online looking at other city's guidelines and how they deal with infill
constructions. Raleigh, North Carolina's district guidelines state that success does not
base on existing buildings forms, details, etc, but rather relies on the character of the
district. It mentions many features that our guidelines also list. She mentioned Salt
Lake City's design guidelines. She also noted Steve Luoni's letter that was written
concerning a infill project outside of MacArthur Park Local Ordinance District. She
believes that the circumstances are so unique for this site and supports the application.
Chairman Peters stated that according to Dan Becker at the City of Raleigh, it makes no
difference if the projects are on the edge of the district or in the center of the district.
The project is in the district and the guidelines do not need to be changed for one area
21
versus another. Mr. Drane Wilkerson said the same thing. Commissioner Wood asked
!_li r (; (li 1\i !`li iil!✓.i rii ifii� ir= %lam ni_rnri it +tln r__nrN
Mr. Wilson spoke of the variety of styles in the district and stated that he did not want to
move the district lines. Mr. Redden asked about lessenina the standards for infill
l ltv:v I 111111-;1 II it If I I f 111 <y: l/ I/-�\/�I I1��f I\/ Ill / �'- Ct L-U that
I-II ld d L I:_I�
e.v, _ - .::e ;�::: , ,I„ 1ya oLa�cu �11at ti ��s hear Cvuiu I IOC eSiabu5l i
that policy. The policy would have to be set by the commission in a separate hearing to
change the guidelines and the ordinance at the Board of Directors level. Mr. Redden
noted that there were fifty vacant lots in the area and that he did not want to go though
this discussion on each one.
Chairman Peters stated that with roof, scale, and mass, a lot of changes and variations
could be made with walls and windows, etc. to produce i.n.terestinq architecture. Mr.
Redden asked if it was redesigned with still having a flat roof, if the building would still
be incompatible. Chairman Peters said that he thought it would be incompatible.
Mr. Wilson stated that price and design had to be considered as an applicant and has to
address the market. Chairman Peters said that his feeling do not come into play in this
decision, he has guidelines to uphold. He has been instructed to uphold the guidelines
through all of the classes and seminars that he has attended. Chairmen Peters stated
that the scale and height is not the issue, in itself, it is the roof. He continued that his
interpretation of the guidelines state that it should have a pitched roof. He does not
understand why the roof cannot be changed and still have the water gathering
CanahilitiA� cnlar nanels etc. I-Ic does not uilderstaild file fiXatioill vVith the fiat roof. N.,w..,... r ,
(;(1MMiCCinY1Arc WiprinlAner and WnOA e+n+orl +ke- werl, �.. F..4 1 al, al I:_�a:__
v...0 JL{ Ll %A a l�.ry vvcl c colinvl table VViU l the applicaUUl1.
Commissioner Wood stated that with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, and the
way that he reads the legislation, it seem compatible to him and it is just a difference of
opinion on the interpretation of the guidelines.
Mr. Minyard, Staff made a brief comment in lieu of a Staff presentation. He stated he
did not think that Staff or anyone else driving by would not recognize that this is a new
building of contemporary architecture. He commented on Mr. Luoni's letter and has
reviewed it. The letter really reinforces the Staff write-up and guidelines on page 63 —
69. The bottom line on the report is that if a hip roof was added to the building, Staff
would change it's recommendation to approval, whether it be metal, or asphalt shingle.
He continued to point out houses in the block that are historic that have hip roofs and
other houses in tIke ee district that have hip roofs. Staff is stating that it needs a hip roof to
be compatible with all of the other structures in the area that have hipped roofs. All of
the other criteria have been met. Staff would welcome a gabled roof but would prefer a
hip roof.
22
Commissioner Wiedower stated that out of the seven considerations, the roof is only
one that is not compatible. One consideration is not enough for her to say that it is not
compatible.
Commissioner Wood has an inherent problem with changing the design of a building as
proposed by the architect. Mr. Minyard stated that that is the inherent nature of being
on a design review committee, whether it be the LR HDC or the Capitol Zoning District.
Changes are made, and he listed changes made to recent infill structures. Chairman
Peters asked how many COA's approved had some changes made. Mr. Minyard
responded that all had some changes made to them. Chairman Peters listed projects,
as did Mr. Minyard. Commissioner Wood stated that the changes were made because
of the adjacency of historic structures. Mr. Wood said that in this situation there are
vacant lots. Mr. Minyard responded that there are historic structures in the block.
Sharon Welch Blair spoke in opposition to the plan and lives at 220 West 22nd Street.
She is speaking as a citizen of the area and as president of the DNA Downtown
Neighborhood Association. The DNA has a board that covers this area and others, and
stated this it was important to uphold the Historic District Guidelines.
As a citizen, she stated that all of the people would like to have infill. She has been in
the neighborhood for 15 years, and has restored five structures. She wants more
people living downtown. The area is at a tipping point; people want to live downtown.
The new infill, while meeting all have met requirements may not look like historic
structures but they fit in. People love to be in the district.
To reference Mr. Wilson, layering is important. She talked about the history of the area
and the new infill at the time not being appropriate, lost lots of buildings and at that time,
the Historic districts came into being. There are many opportunities in the city to have
modern architecture outside of the district. It is important to know that that most people
came to the area because of the protections the districts afford. She continued that she
agreed with Staff and Chairman Peter. People will come, and we need appropriate infill.
Kay Tatum, resident of MacArthur Park District, spoke in opposition to the plan. She
stated the guidelines were in place and that there is a clear understanding of the
guidelines. She thinks that there are different standards for renovation versus new
construction. What about new structures in older areas? Would this be appropriate in
other areas? She appreciates the new people and the new construction. She would
welcome something that was more conforming to the neighborhood.
James Meyer, AMR employee, lives in Stifft Station and encouraged the Commission
and Staff to explore the work in the Holy Cross Historic District of New Orleans. As to
how infill is done in response to a natural disaster. He stressed the modern adaptation
of historic patterns. Downtown neighborhoods have proximity and walkability. Historic
fabric is non-existent anymore at this site. He supports the application.
23
iVi V V iUUUVvUi JLUL�U —L vv u I u — i iUUi H iL4 UU11 1 ! t-, L L. : I tzU a 0. V Z; v Z; V Z; ! r-'•
m4:tatinriQ th::it then rnmmiQQinn h?Q hiaarri from :n. \!--.riPtw of nPnnIP. P.nd thpir 1nrIiVjrdii,-,4fl
viewpoints. She is happy that the citizens are participating. She did receive an email
from Carolyn Newbern and asked if Mr. Minyard could open it. He responded that he
could not open it either. She also received an email from Helen Schaffer that owns
property on East 15th Street in opposition. Mr. Minyard said that he would ask Ms.
Newbern to resend.
Commissioner Wood stated that Anne Jerrard called him and stated that she was
opposed to the item.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to defer the item to the September 9, 2009
hearing due to the fact that the commission is short one commissioner. Commissioner
Wood seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 recusal (Ripley) and 1
open position.
Mr. Minyard announced the September meeting will be on September 9th at 6:00 in this
room.
24
June 7, 2009
PaulPageDwellings proposes to build two separate low-cost homes facing south on 15c'
Street, between Cumberland Street and Rock Street. These homes represent the ideas of
sustainability and will take their style, scale and passive features from the past.
PaulPageDwellings wants to be innovative, but restrained, so that the homes can be
attainable to first time homeowners and urban pioneers. Using existing infrastructure, on
a marked bike trail and public bus route linked to the award- winning MacArthur Park
Master plan "Connections a Vision For a City in a Park" and the SoMa Neighborhood
Design Plan, we will continue to create a livable traditional neighborhood. These
sustainable, economically viable homes will continue to build on the neighborhoods
diversity and inclusive desires of those living nearby. We want to collaborate to build a
walkable neighborhood.
The first dwelling, the Neotrot brings back to life a former dogtrot once located at the
corner of Daisy Bates and Rock Street. The Neotrot has two -bedrooms, with adjoining
baths placed at either side of a center gathering room (dogtrot), kitchen, dining table,
seating area are in this space. The pens are the bedrooms suites. The dwelling faces due
south, to optimize solar gain in the winter and shade in the summer. The exterior display
will be eight -inch shiplap cypress board, cut and milled locally. The roof will be m-core
galvalume, a cool roof material that has a silver color to reflect and emit sunlight. There
will be no standard fireplace, only a pellet stove, if desired by homeowner. The windows
will be Windsor or Kolbe style, energy -efficient; both have exterior cladding, which will
be operable for natural crass -ventilation. A whole house attic fan will be employed to
assist in cooling. The outside areas wiII have wooden, horizontal fencing, the parking
pads will consist of porous gravel, the grass, Bermuda (Iow watering) and the additional
landscape will stress drought tolerant trees and plants. There will be areas to collect
rainwater runoff from roofs and areas to grow food in raised garden beds.
The first dwelling, along with the second home would meet many of the criteria for
LEED Home and LEED for neighborhood development. Points would most likely be
awarded for the connections and community site, the existing infrastructure, size of
homes, lack of garages, coal roofs and water -efficient fixtures and landscape and
numerous other home features. These two urban designs are developed with nature and
culture in mind_
The second dwelling, on the comer of 15'h Street, is interpreted as a modern Four -Square
home. The 4-sq. dwelling faces south too.. The two-story has a kitchen and gathering
space on the first floor. The second floor includes three -bedrooms and two bathrooms.
Windsor or Kolbe windows that open for cross -ventilate on, as well as a direct solar vent
for the attic space, will act to cool the sleeping areas. PaulPageDwellings will not mimic
the hip roof of the past, but instead use a flat -white membrane roof to reflect heat, cool
the city and use its gradient behind a parapet wall to collect rainwater in the future, The
exterior display would be a Hardie Board product in a panel and lap display, for low
Cover letter from applicant
25
maintenance, durability and sustainability, much like the cypress board would perform
over its lifecycle. The Four -Square house usually had a porch and our 4-sg. Porch is
located on the southeast comer. Interior, ..ould be simple ju:;t like the pa,'. The t'Cacing
and outdoors again would he similar to the Neotrot, -vooden and horizontal fences at a
friendly height to neighbors and pedestrians. Drought resistant grasses and planting
would makeup the landscape. The driveway would be porous gravel pads. Raised garden
beds and rainwater collection will be available and the southern exposure will also allow
for future renewable energy sources.
The hoped for goal is to create a passive, sustainable dwelling for urban pioneers that
take advantage of its location to make possible the beliefs of a walkable neighborhood.
Cover letter from applicant continued
26
June 22, 2009
Siding on Neotrot is a lap cypress, to be painted, stained a soft neutral color or will be
aged by the sun. There are no model numbers, it is milled locally.
Roof on Neotrot is ga kcalume, M-Cor Galvalume Plus 29ga. Manufacturer US Steel Co,
Galvalume is gray in color.
Windows are BestBilt by National Home Center, they come with metal clad
casements,the interior are wood. The windows are double -hung and casement
awnings.Color is rustic red.
Doors on Neotrot are standard widths and heights. Wood door, painted orange.
Manufactured by National Home Center.
Siding on the 4-square is paneled cement board, manufactured by James Hardie. Painted
a soft green color.
Roof on 4-square is a white membrane roof, manufactured by GAF,45mi1
Windows are Best Bilt by National Home Center, they come with metal clad casements,
the interiors are wood. The windows are static, with awnings or sliders.
Doors on 4-square are standard doors. Wood door, painted yellow. Manufactured by
National Home Center.
The fences are made of pine, on a horizontal line. Four feet tall. Fences are to age
naturally,
Sidewalks are concrete, 4ft wide, to ADA standards.
The parking pads are packed -small gravel, porous, with a 4" by 4" post boarder.
Sincerely submitted,
w p'ZS u-,-
PaulPageDwellings
Revised cover letter from applicant
27
name
address
comments
Dale and Susan Remy
305 E 15th
support
Betsy YOUr q
1 1 OCk Jtr t
support
K_Fnii Yn hinny
l5'JII FCnOk ti[raei
siInnnFT
1.1 lI'Is and L'IZ LIIIJ
1614 f ocK Jtl eet
support
t
Daenna Jones
1419 Main Street
support
Jennifer Heslmeyer & Brayn Barnhouse
1518 Rock
support
George Wittenberg
1509 Louisiana
support
Chan Tucker
309 E 15th ST
support
QQA Roger Williams
follow your guidelines
Drane Wilkerson, NAPC
follow your guidelines
Carolyn Newbern
opposed
Steve Hitt
MacPark prop owner
opposed
Christopher Naylor
opposed
Margaret Wyatt
1600 Louisiana
opposed
Sharon Welch Blair
opposed
Chris Vanlandingham
MacPark prop owner
opposed
Kathy Wells
MacPark prop owner
opposed
Ed Sergeant
opposed
Downtown Neighborhoods Assoc
opposed
Angela Murray
MacPark prop owner
opposed
Karol Zoeller
MacPark prop owner
opposed
Mary Jane Bailey
opposed
Anne Jerrard
opposed
Laura Sergeant
opposed
Date: July 10, 2009
To: MacArthur Historic Commission
From: Chan Tucker, PE
Subject: Approval of Paul Page Dwellings Planned Residential Development
To Whom It May Concern:
On July 1't, 2009 Page Wilson, principle owner of PaulPageDwellings, notified me that he is attempting
to build two properties in an open lot directly across from my property at 309 East 15th Street. Page
showed me the detailed architectural drawings and I was very pleased with what he had to offer. I
recently moved into the neighborhood from New Orleans, LA. What attracted me to the neighborhood
is the accessibility to downtown attractions. I selected MacArthur neighborhood because I see the great
potential that this neighborhood has to offer. Also, the neighborhood has a lot of character and charm
that I was not able to find elsewhere when searching for homes in the Little Rock community. The
detailed drawings that Page showed me will only enhance our community and potentially attract other
investors to build homes and retail shops in our community.
I asked the commission to grant approval to build the proposed buildings. I greatly believe that the
project will not only enhance our community but also increase my property value. Also, the
architectural style that Page is using will not take away from the historic charm that the community
offers. Please give our community an opportunity to continue to grow and become one of the most
attractive and vibrant communities in downtown Little Rock, AR.
Sincerejy 1
r-yv_
Chun Tucker, PE
309 East 15th Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
June 30, 2009
I am writing to express my support of the development Page Wilson is planning for our
neighborhood south of %lain. I am a resident ofRock Street and have eirjotied the
diversity of design in our neighborhood.
Page has certainly been a major contributor to that diversity. I anticipate that this project
will enhance the value of my home. The beauty and energy efficiency of his homes have
certainly attracted some wonderful people to our neighborhood.
I am friends with most of my neighbors and understand that many are vocalizing our
support of Page and this project. I hope you will give strong consideration to the voices
of those of us who live in the very neighborhood that is the site of this project.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or a need for further comment.
Thank you for your consideration,
Betsy Young
13
1818 Roc Str
Little Rock, AR 72206
501-765-7521
b oun ,2bclr.com
Dear MacArthur Park Commissioners,
I'm writing this letter in strong support for the construction of Page Wilson's homes on
the corner of 151h and Rock. I was sadly disappointed that he did not receive approval last
time even though so many of those who actually live in the neighborhood were, and still
are, in favor of the homes. In no way to do I feel that his homes will hurt our property
value. I think they will do the exact opposite, greatly increase the value of the homes in
our neighborhood. Furthermore I do not think they will hurt the historic nature of the
neighborhood. At present there are almost as many empty lots as there are homes. Not to
mention that there are currently three homes that that look different then historical homes.
Page Wilson is an avid supporter of our neighborhood as well as a caring and supportive
neighbor. Again I strongly ask that you listen to the residents of the neighborhood and
allow Page to construct these homes.
Thanks,
Chris and Liz Ellis
1814 Rock St.
To Whom It May Concern:
I uS� VVi|JU//1msU/uuP;I ILI 1a1 IyI I III P:)»onom�i'UtL, lvidcArihurFeK,and [luapawanpac Hen
noton|;inxu1-cri in the K4arA rthI :rDark �r;r�10 hc|Fs�/ead �he
Downtown park is doing and planning in the future, but he has also brought three incredible
homes tothe Icmblock ofRock Street, and those are just toname afew things. Heisa
wonderful advocate for Downtown LR' and | have the pleasure of calling him my neighbor. | live
on South Main St, close to Page's houses and | have no doubt that if he is allowed to build on
those lots that he will be able to increase area property values, bring more incredible prospects
to the neighborhood, and �vorkto encompass the future of Downtown. After seeing his houses,
I've already told him that he's going tobuild myfirst house. Because ofthe work that he's help
do on Rock Street, our friends have been able to come together and have cook outs, progressive
dinners, and just fun times ateach other's residences. VVewho|e'hearted|ysupport Page and
how he wants to help be a part of making Downtown wonderful and affordable. Please grant
Page theabi|it;too move forward inthisend�a��r. |�issma||s�epsandactioos|ike�aQe'�i}/ai
help to revitalize Downtown and add to the growing excitement of what Downtown LR has to
offer.
Thanks,
Deanna]ones
1419S. Main St.
LR,AR7Z202
June 24, 2009 JjW � &
RE; New home building in historical district
To Whom It May Concern:
My husband and I live at 305 E 15th Street and love the idea of new homes going in at
the corner of 15th and Rock Street. We believe it will help the value of the homes in the
neighborhood and will no way hurt the character of the historical nature of the
neighborhood. To our knowledge most of our neighbors are in support of the project and
are looking forward to adding even more character to our neighborhood.
We hope you take this in consideration while making the choice to do the right thing
and let the project begin as soon as possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Dale & Susan Remy
IV 1 ?nnq
Dear McArthur Historic Commissioners,
I am writing this letter to strongly support the new construction plan on 15`h and Rock, proposed by Mr.
Page Wilson of Paul Page Dwellings LLD.
1 believe new construction of houses is equally essential as preservation of historic buildings to develop
a vibrant community. This is especially true for the areas with many vacant houses and empty lots
including our neighborhood. Our community needs more people, thus we needs dwellings that attract
people especially in this time of oversupplied housing market. Keeping deserted empty lots simply does
not help our community to grow.
In the past two years, I have evidently witnessed that Mr. Wilson has significantly contributed to the
growth of our community by building sustainable dwellings that have attracted many people including
ones who are traditionally skeptical about downtown living. Empty lots in our neighbor should be filled
with new houses and vacant houses in the area should be renovated by some means. Thus, I believe his
new construction plan at 15`h and Rock, if approved, will be a significant milestone to the further
enrichment of vibrant community in McArthur Historic District.
Sincerely,
Kenji Yoshigoe
1520 Rock Street
Little Rock, AR 72202
To Whom It May Concern,
As residents of South Ruck Street, we are writing to express our support of the single
family homes currently proposed for development by Paul Page Dwellings at the
northwest corner of 1 S and Rock Streets. These lrames will neither diminish the
character of the neighborhood nor affect its histlqualities. On the contrary, they sidents to the community and efie �wil�
help grow the value of existing homes, attract new re
a vibrant, economically accessible and diverse neighborhood that is continuing to
revitalize. in addition, they will encourage more citizens to return to their urban core and
showcase the national trend of sustainable development that should be encouraged and
promoted in Little Rock.
As a couple who will live in close proximity to the proposed homes, and homeowners
who have invested in this community to support urban renewal, we, stand behind this
project. In a community where lots have sat empty or abandoned for quite some time,
Paul Page Dwellings will help revitalize the neighborhood by investing in responsible,
affordable and appropriate new homes.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Heselmeyer & Bryan Barnhouse
151 S Rock Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72202
GEORGE H.WITTENBERG,III,AIA
1509 Louisiana Street
i�a I I..L'� 1%iJv3Sy .^�Ka'C.�1`d Fe0 ' 2202
501.375.2465
A R C H I T E C T
MFMO
Date: July 13, 2009
To: MacArthur Park Historic District Commission members
From: George Wittenberg, AIA
Re: applir_n inn for Pahl Page Dwellings
As a resident of the neighborhood south of 1 -630 at 1509 Louisiana, which is
only a few blocks away form the proposed development, I am writing to say I am
in favor of approval of this project.
I am out of town or I would be present today to express my support. The project
as revised meets all of the concerns I heard expressed at the last commission
meeting when this application was presented. It also does an excellent job
architecturally interpreting the historic nature of our neighborhood. The recent
Urban Design Plan for this area, which was adopted by the Southside Main
Street Board and approved in a presentation to the City Board recommends this
type of development for this area south of 1-630.
Please approve it and allow construction to begin. We need new housing badly in
this neighborhood and economic development like this in the downtown in
naneral
River Market Area
Enhancement Proposal 1
Page 1 of 1
Minyard, Brian
From: Roger Williams [rilliams@quapaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 2:36 PM
To: Minyard, Brian
Subject: Letter to the LRHDC for its July 13, 2009 Meeting
Dear Members of the Little Rock Historic District Commission:
I write this to urge you to uphold the design guidelines for the Little Rock Historic District (MacArthur Park). These
guidelines have been successful in guiding redevelopment and rehabilitation within the district for many years.
They were not developed arbitrarily nor in a vacuum, but were crafted through a formal process which allowed
public input and comment. They have been widely distributed to property owners in the district and are readily
available on the city's website.
It is unlikely that any individuals who wish to build new infill structures in the district are unaware of the
guidelines. Local architects are also well aware. Therefore, any proposals that seriously deviate from the
guidelines can only be viewed as a deliberate attempt to thwart the mission and goals of the Historic District
Commission and the Design Guidelines. There are certainly plenty of vacant lots outside of the district that are
available for projects that radically deviate from the guidelines.
If you as a Commission feel that the guidelines are appropriate and fair, then you should uphold them in your
consideration of applications that may come before you. If you feel that the guidelines are outdated or no longer
relevant, then there should be a formal process to revise and update them. Granting variances and "bending the
rules" sets a dangerous precedent and amounts to the kind of "spot zoning" that the Little Rock Historic District
Commission and the Capitol Zoning District Commission were originally set up to prevent.
In summary, I ask that you not grant a certificate of appropriateness to any project that does not conform to the
present historic district design guidelines.
Respectfully,
Roger D. Williams
Executive Director
Quapaw Quarter Association
615 E. Capitol Ave.
Little Rock, AR 72202
P. O. Box 165023
Little Rock, AR 72216
501.371.0075.x222
rwilliams@quapaw.com
7/9/2009
Minyard, Brian
From: Drane Wilkinson [drane@uga.edu]
Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 6:53 AM
To: marshall
C n.
�. .. �;J�� ��ui � vvy'., ivluill.l
Subject Jth ullu RU- ;K Pfu.uosal 10,
Marshal:
eS aL 15tn and Rock; and while`
_.._-ii S:.-L'uLLu'-� 1 diiilOt Comment
Oth2 SpeciC1L1CS OL
the project, I.would like to offer the following cautionary reminders.
1) A commission should net rule on an application if it does not have sufficient
information to make an informed decision. Details such as materials and design for
-�5 cf a SLil.i��uc, and L71 nC10',d S1Z_ aCQ placement are essential F
c ma'{ =n _,' f Lm,ad deci siOn. ., mmi,33iGi, IIta'y' discuss opLions w1Ln an
a ri r;] _. ..-. ?c ].nnr ?c _- _, __.. ..-_ - _z�1;- i�T.:. i' �e�;:_ __ �G--=1 .._l- C.-'_ _ f.•'iY
uC a o v"vGiii ily w1L11 all`appllcanz Lo
make sure that an application contains all of the information the commission needs both
protects the commission from accusations of negligence and protects the applicant from
unwittingly doing inappropriate work that would need to be changed later and at
potentially greater expense.
2) While a commission may make exceptions to its guidelines, it must be able to show and
clearly articulate that the approved work meets the applicable Secretary of the Interiors
Standards (I believe Little Rock includes the Standards in its guidelines) or will not
have an adverse effect on the district as a whole. This finding should be part of the
official record of the decision.
3) Any decision to give new construction applications less stringent review or to hold
them to a lower threshold as a means of facilitating redevelopment of an area should be
made at the policy level or through a revision to adopted guidelines. Decisions to hold
certain types of applications to a lower or different standard made on a case by case
basis can lead to inconsistency and open the commission to accusations of arbitrary and
capricious behavior.
4) Applications for work that does not follow adopted guidelines in order to achieve a
LEED rating or meet other energy efficiency or "Green" standards must still be reviewed
according to the adopted guidelines. Any decision to hold applications of this sort
according to different standards should be made at a policy level or through a revision to
adopted guidelines, not on a case by case basis. In most cases that have come to NAPC's
attention, a compromise has been found that allowed the project to achieve the desired
rating while still following the adopted guidelines.
I hope that this information is helpful. As always, please feel free to call or write if
NAPC orI can be of further assistance.
Thanks,
Drane
Drane Wilkinson
NAPC Executive Director
1
CUSTOMER MESSAGE
To - ILIA
Date—� _� Time �•`
CALLER INFORMA TION
N a = �i--
Of
Phong Ext.
SUBJECT
Toxt ephoned
❑ Returned your call
❑ Came to see you -
❑ Please phone
❑ Will phone again
❑ Urgent .
KIM
CUSTOMER MESSAGE
To _ nk 4•�% — — --
Date�'8 im
CALLER INFORMA TI o
Namr
Phone '1a - Bin a, Ext,
r
IECT
elep�oned ❑ Please phone
❑ Returned your call ❑ Will phone again
❑ Came to see you ❑ Urgent
C r�,
s&e—D
i1 � f I�b a kX00
CUSTOMER MESSAGE
Ct� C
CALLER LVF RALATI
Nam k6 o�L
rnoog .'�� S— l�1 ext.
SUBJECT
QJ�etephoned e
❑ Returned your call ❑ Will phone again
❑ Came to see you ❑ Urgent
CUSTOMER MESSAGE
To
Daic -
CALLER INF RMA QN
Fxt
Phoae
❑ Telephoned ❑Please phone
❑ Returned your call ❑ Will phone again
❑ Came to see you ❑ Urgent
��C
i
f
I
I
DOWNTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD AS I CIATION
Hoar 1.64485, utdc Rock, AR 722 16
k
HITTP•1 PS.YA CC�M! DU I -❑ A
Fault" 1964 tArar: Adwa Rare:, Ih- MLcdm lAthtr King)r. Dr., 900�at Rd- Liftntos 30i
President Sharon Welch -Blair 501-375- 701, fax 375-4537
July 12, 2009
Mr. Brian Minyard
MacArthur Park Historic District Commission
500 W. Markham St.
Little Rock, AR 72201
Dear Mr. Minyard,
i
The Board of Directors of the Downtown Neighborhood voted to I xpress organization
support for the regulations of the MacArthur Park Historic D7 Strict and to oppose any
waivers for the Page Wilson project proposed for 1422 S. Rock St.
We support requiring new houses to be compatible with historic i rchitea-ture. The
proposed two-story house with the flat roof is incompatible, by stj iff review, but could be
muds to fit the District by the addition of a hipped roof. We hope he applicant does
this.
The Downtown Neighbon# odds Plan for the Future, originating ini
1999 and revised in 2005, also upholds the policy that new structures be
compatible with existing architecture.
Yours Truly,
Sharon Welch -Blair
President
I
I
i
Zl 39VJ 600Z/C!,4e
Page 1 of 1
Minyard, Brian
F_..m: VAC)O! 70E7i i C� fL-,rl,izoe11er�lcl ccfl_'r ' n.fl
. _.... IX_ l X - - _ �L_u ` of viw�.ii �. v v vui.i
c .. M r y, I mI„ 13 2009 7 1-10 inn
To: Minyard, Brian
Subject: Re: LR HDC agenda for July 10, 2009
Brain, I would like to go verbalize my objection to the proposed construction by Page Wilson.
These homes would be great someplace other than an Historic Dist. We do not need to put our Historic
status at risk by allowing construction that is not within guidelines. If Page is allowed to go forward with
his construction there will be no stopping him or other developers from putting New Modern buildings
in the District. Thanks Karol
On Tue, 7/7/09, Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.osg> wrote:
From: Minyard, Brian <BMinyard@littlerock.org>
Subject: LR HDC agenda for July 10, 2009
To: "KAROL ZOELLER (E-mail)" <karolzoeller@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 5:00 PM
<<15 rock.pdf>> <<1004 scott.pdf>> <<07-13-09 LRHDC Agenda.pdf>>
Brian Minyard, AICP
bmi n yard 0,l i ttl era ck.yrg
(501) 371-4789
fax (501) 399-3435
7/13/2009
Minyard, Brian
From: Kathy Wells [katwells@earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 3:30 PM
To: Minyard, Brian
Subject: oppose proposed new houses for 1422 S. Rock as incompatible
Mr. Minyard,
As owners of 1015 S. Scott St., an historic four-plex in the MacArthur Park
Historic District, my husband and I value the protection to our real-estate
provided by the District.
We value its regulations upholding rules requiring that new structures be
compatible architecturally with the historic structures.
We oppose any waivers to the two houses proposed by Page Wilson at 1422 S.
Rock St. and urge the Commission uphold the regulations requiring
compatibility.
Yours Truly,
Kathy Wells
Box 777, Little Rock, AR 72203
501-375-6987
1
Page 1 of 1
Minyard; Brian
r_ r� cam___ rrn__ n..,a__� i
rrs��re: rci .�r.i Ji F.�iii ��.�ri �A�ilii`S pOln�i,:�i�ie;i•r �J :'•'"l
:yr' nv -1 V .IIIIV lil. %0 A P, 2.1 7 PM
To: Minyard, Brian
Subject: Application for 15th at Rock Street Houses
Dear Sirs.
Thank you for this opportunity to write to you. I wish to voice my opposition to the design of the houses, per the
application submitted for review in July 2009, for the following reasons:
1. According to Chapter 5, paragraph B, "New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain,
not disrupt, the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood." Due to its high modern
design, the proposed design is definitely in stark contrast to the surrounding historic houses.
2. Chapter 5, paragraph B.3: "Building Form: Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match
those used historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances, windows, divisional
bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights (foundation, floor to ceiling, porch height and depth.)-
The roof shape is flat and should be sloped. The location and proportion of entrances look more like a
commercial building. The divisions of the exterior are not a familiar scale — it is difficult to tell whether this is a one
story or 6 story building based on the division by squares (they don not match used historically in the area).
3. This does not appear to be a complete submission? If so, the lack of information does not provide proper
review in regard to all requirements and should be resubmitted. I did not obtain the application requirements, but
I would think that site plan should include required setbacks, adjacent structures and the elevations should
include building materials and heights.
4. It is great to see modern structures in the downtown area but it is not worth sacrificing the importance of the
Historic District — infill housing at any cost is not worth the loss in integrity of the District.
5. Such variances should not be allowed. This may set a bad precedence for future structures and variances in
the district. The same developer and architecture team have designed and built several other modern homes in
the area. This is proof that a modern house may also be designed for the proposed corner which would conform
to the Ordinance.
6. The district is not that large — the design of the corner could go a lot of other locations. Can the developer
seek another site outside of both MacArthur and CZ?
Ed Sergeant
7/10/2009
To: Little Rock Historic District Commission
From: Carolyn L. Newbern
Date: August 7, 2009
Re: Proposed Development at 15`h and Rock Streets
Please accept these comments regarding the proposed houses at 151h and Rock
Streets, because I will be out of town on Monday, August 17.
As a former member of the Little Rock Historic District Commission, I can attest
to the serious deliberations given to the topic of new infill construction, when the
Commission revised the Guidelines for the MacArthur Park.Historic District in 2006.
The standards of the Secretary of the Interior were carefully weighed, including
encouraging compatibility with "...massing, size, scale, and architectural features to
protect the historic integrity of the... environment." Arkansas's enabling legislation states
that Commissions must prevent "...the construction ... of buildings ... in the historic
district that are obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of the district." All of our
efforts were focused toward protecting the overall integrity of the MacArthur Park
Historic District and to encourage respectful restoration/renovation as well as compatible
infill and development. We realized that these Guidelines reassured property owners,
both existing and potential, that the essential character of the neighborhood would be
maintained and thus that their investment would be secured.
The current proposal by Paul Page Dwellings meets neither the criteria nor the
spirit of the Guidelines, in the choice of roofing material for the one-story house but
particularly in the design of the two-story, flat -roofed cube. Although in isolation the
cube might be considered vibrant and exciting, within this historic district the design is
alien. I am quite concerned for the precedent its construction would set, both for new
construction and for alterations of existing, contributing structures. The integrity of the
National Register Historic District listing could be affected by future alterations
following this style.
Please respect the values upon which both the national and local historic
preservation goals rest. As the proposal stands, it should be denied as not complying
with the MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines.