HomeMy WebLinkAboutHDC2015-011 Staff Report Item No. A. 1003 McMath Ave. 12/12/2016DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-343 5
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
DATE:
December 12, 2016
APPLICANT:
Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings, LLC
ADDRESS:
1003 McMath Ave.
COA REQUEST:
Infill House
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath
Avenue. The property's legal description is "Lot 10, 11,
and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This site that is under consideration for the two row
houses has been vacant since before 1978. 1003
McMath will be reviewed in this item, 1005 is a separate
item.
This project will be required to be reviewed by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Directors to
revise the PCD. This will occur after the HDC has
finished their review.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a
search of the files.
The Sanborn maps below show two previous structures have been on this site. In the 1897
Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed
McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings.
On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story
frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue
was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A
large wrap around porch faced the street corner and had a metal or slate roof also. A one story
addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the "Auto House" in the rear that fronted on
the alley.
Page 3 of 63
Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the
1978 survey. It has been vacant since.
n
�1
F
z
O
.f
J
Q
V.
x
1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left)
z
Q
O
0
U.
f
C
F
(9 i
it 0-
r t
�.�
� •„ Z
Z
Q o fi 3
a
2 �
� m
I -
1913. 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps
f
1001
Page 4 of 63
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This proposal is to add two "Row Homes" at 1003 and 1005 McMath. This staff report will
address 1003 McMath. 1005 McMath is a separate item on this agenda. The "Row House" is
three stories tall with a gable front roof with stained oak horizontal siding on the front fagade
with a front loading single car garage. The entry to the house is a side entry near the rear of the
house.
Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
(a)(1) 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. The municipality or county shall require
a certificate of appropriateness to be issued by the commission prior to the issuance
of a building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures. A certificate of appropriateness shall be required whether or not a
building permit is required.
(2) For purposes of this subchapter, "exterior architectural features" shall include
the architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior
of a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the
type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other
appurtenant fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill
posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. — Certificate of appropriateness required:
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
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 the historic district created by this division until after an application
for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been
submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of
appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of
the district.
Page 5 of 63
The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be
reviewed:
Sec 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
be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d).
(d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any
building in the historic district, the commission shall consider, but not be limited to,
the following factors within the building's area of influence:
(1) Siting.
(2) Height.
(3) Proportion.
(4) Rhythm.
(5) Roof area.
(6) Entrance area.
(7) Wall areas.
(8) Detailing.
(9) Facade.
(10) Scale.
(11) Massing.
The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and
Additions and Detached New Construction:
B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS
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
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 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.
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.
Page 6 of 63
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.)
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.)
The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in
keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be
reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction.
The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the
following criteria:
• Architectural style
• General design
General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the
building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and
other appurtenant fixtures
• Siting
• Height
• Proportion
• Rhythm
• Roof area
• Entrance area
• Wall areas
• Detailing
• Facade
• Scale
■ Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE The architectural style of the building is contemporary.
Page 7 of 63
4.
WEST NORTH
Elevations submitted Augast 14, 2016
EAST SOUTH
GENERAL DESIGN. It is a three story single family residence with a gable end roof. The front
facade (west) is dominated by a garage door on the first floor and a large fixed window on the
second and third floor. Windows on the other three facades are scattered with various sizes
and shapes. The first floor is masonry; king size brick. The remainder of the front facade is
stained white oak laid horizontally. The remainders of the other three facades are proposed to
be corrugated CorTen steel wall panels. CorTen steel has a naturally oxidizing finish.
Weathering steel is a group of steel alloys developed to obviate the need for painting and form a
stable rust -like appearance if exposed to the weather for several years. The south facing slope
of the roof is proposed to have solar panels. The roof is proposed to have standing seam
CorTen steel panels.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE
KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL
WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER
APPURTENANT FIXTURES
See below for the descriptions of the remainder of the items.
Wall light fixtures are a Progress cylinder light fixture model 5675-
20130k antique bronze LED. These are proposed on each side of
the garage door and by the entry door. The light is 14" tall and 5"
in diameter.
SITING The house will sit 10'-0" to the south of 1001 McMath, the
mixed use building. It will sit 8'-0" north of 1005. The front
setback will be aligned with the existing 1001 McMath. This
setback relates to 1001 McMath and does not relate to 1007
McMath.
HEIGHT According to plans, the house is 37'-4" plus 1'-4"
(foundation) for a total of 38'-8" tall. The height of 1001 per the _ Proposed Light Fixture
plans is 35-2". The law school dorms on McAlmont Street are between 32'-4' and
depending on which parapet is measured. The yellow house is the shortest of them
between 30 and 31 feet tall. This would be the tallest structure in the area of significance.
Page 8 of 63
37'-0"
all at
PROPORTION The proportion of this
structure reads as very tall and skinny.
This is a ratio of 1 wide to 2.41 tall. This
is not a typical proportion for single
family houses in the district.
RHYTHM The west side of the structure
does have a rhythm, in the fact that
there is one opening per floor and they
are centered in the wall. The other
facades do not have a discernable
rhythm.
ROOF AREA. The house features a
gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. The roof
will be CorTen #ss675 standing seam
roof, 16" wide and 22 gauge metal.
There will be a fixed vented ridgecap 7"
on each slope. Some historic houses
originally had metal roofs, some
standing seam and some metal
shingles. The CorTen steel roof will be
a matte finish as the steel rusts and
produces a medium to dark brown color.
The roof shape and material is
appropriate to the district.
SS675 Standing Seam
Image of Standing Seam roof
�y�Tn1
R_0_0F_
�.'T
3% -4' 8.
�i.
•o.
OAK
STAINED WHITE
Tf0 surd
,
3
16' typ.
Yew
Lmel3
_
21' -4'
BRK. MLT. J-TRIM— —
;d.
OR EOUIV, TYP.
�I
THROUGHOUT VO41%W
AJI
I" 2
j ICING BRICK -
oI
'
o
.
Lnvn91 16' MAX
PAINTED GREY ---- 2% W
OVERHEAD PANEL DOOR
West
elevation of building
Proposed Solar Panels
The solar panels are to be located on the south side of roof. They are made by Sunmodule
Plus SW280 Mondo Black. They are 8 kilowatt each and measure 66"x37" each. The proposal
is to place 20 panels on the south facing slope of the roof for an area of 30'x12'. The location is
for maximum efficiency, but they will be visible from the street
ENTRANCE AREA The entry door to the house is at the rear of the structure, not prominently
displayed. This is non -typical for single family houses in the district. The dominance of the
garage on the front facade is also very non -typical for the district. Staff surveyed the district and
did not find any front loading garages on single family houses. The visitor entry to the house is
Page 9 of 63
at the rear of the structure with few visual clues
as to the location of the entry door. The entry
door will feature a raised wood deck with 2x6
wood decking. This will be approximately flush
with the threshold of the door. There will be no
handrails or railings. There will be a small
canopy over the door of CorTen standing seam
roofing
WALL AREAS This house features CorTen
corrugated steel siding or stained white oak.
King size brick (oversize) is on the first floor with
CMU foundation.
The foundation is in CMU block for a maximum
hei ht of 2'-0" CMU block is short for Common
-chd
V40.
�
Y
Masonry Unit. These will be 8'x8'x16' smooth ,�- :• -
gray concrete blocks.
The brick is a king size brick made by Boral, the
Liberty Collection- Henderson with dimensions 9 Sketch of entry area
5/8" x 2 %" x 3". This is a larger size brick. This is a wire cut commercial brick.
The CorTen siding is a A606-4 Western Stated/Bridger Weathering Steel, installed in a vertical
orientation. It is a 22 gauge CorTen steel 7/8" corrugated in 37' wide panels. The spacing of
the corrugations is 2 2/3" wide.
The garage door is a Masonite door, steel flush door in
24 gauge steel and is insulated. It measures 7' tall by
12'. This is a single garage door with no raised panels
or windows.
The entry door is a 36" x 80" Masonite Sta-Tru HD
flush steel door with no glass.
--- - -- --- 37"0uttoOut -
Z;V
7%
3P Net Coverage (Roof Only)
34W Net Coverage (Wall Only)
The side and rear facades feature two horizontal slit
windows, twelve square windows, and two vertical Corrugated CorTen steel siding
windows, one which is ganged with a casement window under a fixed window. The ratio of solid
wall to windows is atypical with so little of the walls being dedicated to windows. The windows
are Anderson 100 series Awning and Casement windows in Bronze. The windows are made of
Fibrex — a blend of 40 percent wood fiber by weight and 60 percent thermoplastic polymer by
weight. The letter of August 14th states they will be casement and awning windows.
The windows, according to the sketches, will not have interior muntins.
Page 10 of 63
Y�49a—N6V1
ftwt�a-
vowP11�
M
■,err
h.ryer
r1
tiU 4
yw
n .k
Nti
iW
F4
~ -IV
r rn
Proposed garage door (door only, not surround or
�d Entry door
DETAILING The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and
windows will be J-trim with 1 W face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8" wide trim.
FACADE The front facade features a single garage door on the first floor with two fixed large
widows on the second and third floor. The front (west) facade will be sheathed in stained white
oak siding with a bevel top and bottom installed flush with no overlap. It will be laid horizontally.
The boards are approximately a 1" x 5".
SCALE This proposed structure is unique to the district with a
ratio of 1:2.41 width to height. This is not a typical width to
height. Historic houses in the district are wider ,than this one at
16'. In the photos below, 923 McMath has a width to height of
1.5:1, 718 E 10th is more horizontal with a ratio of 1.74:1, 1007
McMath has a ratio of 1.3:1 and 712 E 11th has a ratio of 1.3:1.
These numbers were generated from survey photos. All of
these structures are wider than they are tall.
MASSING The massing of this building is taller in proportion
than the rest of the buildings in the immediate area. The overall
mass may be similar, but the overtly vertical nature of it does not
blend with the neighborhood.
If the two houses were joined by some architectural feature to
emphasize the pedestrian visitor entry, the two houses might be
read as one and the proportion of the width to height would be
closer to a 1: 1.
Page 11 of 63
1j
923 McMafh 718 E 10"
cs:
1007 McMafh
SITE DESIGN
Fencing is to be pine wood and 4"x4"
utility wire, picture framed with pine and
attached with galvalume screws.
Driveways will be 12 feet wide in
concrete with apron flares at the street.
�'-T
712 E 11"'
L
The walk to entry door appears to be
large concrete paver stones in concrete
based on the site plan. No detail has z •' "''�:
been given. A
This house does not blend with the
area of influence nor does it blend with
the district as a whole in the design
factors of Siting, Height, Proportion, Pra used fence
Rhythm, Entrance area, Wall areas, Scale, and Massing. The placement of the house on the lot
should relate more to the historic house at 1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure
within the area of influence. The overall proportions do not blend with the district and the
rhythm of the exterior walls is undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area to window area is
Page 12 of 63
inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The scale and massing are
also atypical to the neighborhood.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: September 12. 2016
The applicant was asked if he wanted to defer the item since there were only 4 commissioners
present. Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer the item after it was heard by the Commission.
There was a discussion that according to the bylaws, an applicant can only defer five days in
advance of the hearing. It was decided that the Commission would defer the application after
the hearing for additional information.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. He noted the letter from the
Mayor.
Mr. Page Wilson, the applicant, made a presentation to the Commission with a PowerPoint
presentation. He spoke of row houses that were connected or separated and garages in the
front or the back. He spoke of the location of the site, that it is separated from the rest of the
district, and the individual structures that are contributing or non-contributing. He also noted
that he had a lease to own on the yellow house at 1007 McMath. He spoke of existing and new
curb cuts on McMath. He then spoke of his zoning on the site and reference the site plan. He
spoke of the distinct gable forms in the area and how they influenced his design. He also spoke
of the large fixed windows. He stated that he would be open to some sort of connection
between the two buildings and would not be covered all of the way through. Mr. Wilson
acknowledged that there are no single family structures where there is a front loaded garage.
He spoke of parking in the front yards. He spoke of materials to be used and said that he would
be open to a ribbon driveway to the units. He stated 1001 was built at 38'-2" tall but was shown
as 35'-2" on the elevations as submitted for the COA. The building was built taller because of
code requirements for the stairs.
Mr. Minyard read out of the guidelines Appendix K, the definition of height to clarify for the
Commissioners. It states: "The distance from the bottom to the top of a building or structure."
He stated that he added the foundation height to the building height to get the proposed heights
of the buildings. He continued that there were different ways of calculating height in different
ways in different parts of the city. He continued the presentation with a discussion of height of
the building, and the elevations of the Heiple Wiedower infill plan. He read from page 54 of the
Guidelines under Alterations or Additions to Historic Additions and stated that these did not
apply to his project.
Mr. Wilson stated that he was open to installing a grill pattern in the front facing west windows,
maybe snazzing up the garage doors, and reducing the concrete in the front. He then spoke of
the new African American Museum that was built on the Mall in Washington DC.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked if he was open to changing the fagade on the street view. Mr.
Wilson handed out two photos of his inspiration for the row house. Mr. Wilson stated that he
could add block or a wood piece in between the buildings. Vice Chair Jeremiah Russell stated
that it would help to have a screen wall. It would be seen like a fence instead of a wall between
Page 13 of 63
the two. There was a question on what staff would call the structure. Mr. Minyard responded
that Staff would decide what to call it after it was submitted to them. There was a discussion on
the Guidelines recommendations on fence heights and the locations of the fences.
Commissioner Toni Johnson commented on the other duplexes being replatted for zero lot lines
and asked why he could not do that. Mr. Wilson replied that he wanted to separate them for
sound issues and ease of construction and build one at a time. He noted a negative public
perception of duplexes.
Commissioner Johnston stated that he was arguing for a looser interpretation of the guidelines
because of what is around it. They cannot throw out that many of the guidelines to support this
application. She spoke of the height, rhythm, scale, massing, and materials. To his comments
on this from being in the district already, she noted that Mr. Wilson was only showing a portion
of the building, not all of it.
Mr. Wilson stated that the CorTen steel looks rusty when it is done. Changes for opening and
not viewed as easily and will mostly be in the shadow. He continued that the solar panels will
be hard to see.
Vice Chair Russell stated that based on the four criteria, he believes that the project complies.
On orientation, he believes that it complies. On mass and scale, the form is an abstraction of
other houses from various styles of building. On the building form, he says this is a classic
form. On building materials, it has predominately used wood. On the facades, the metal will not
be seen from the street. Mr. Wilson stated that the orientation of the metal was vertical.
Mr. Wilson talked of the contributing and non-contributing map. He spoke of the new
apartments in the 500 block of Rock that are 50 feet high. He stated he was willing to add an
abstraction to join the building, but did not want it to be unsafe for the residents.
Vice Chair Russell wanted the applicant to bring physical samples of the steel and wood to the
meeting. Mr. Minyard stated that he had one piece of wood that was given to Staff, but it was
unremarkable. Mr. Minyard clarified that the wood should be attached to another piece so that
the Commission could see how the individual pieces are attached in relation to the others.
Chair BJ Bowen stated that the project did not have the typical proportion; the garage is on the
front; the height is taller; the entrance door is in the rear not prominently displayed; and the slit
windows need to be larger. All of these things do not adhere to the guidelines.
Mr. Wilson stated that on Italianate structures, the windows are all over the place in size. The
small windows are in the dark edges of the building and not seen from the street. The buildings
are 84' long and 20' wide. The shotguns he has built are either 18' wide or 18' with bumpouts.
He stated that he is not interested in building replica lite but has voted for them. He then spoke
of the Mayors letter. He continued that he did not get tax credits for these projects since he is in
new construction.
Vice Chair Russell stated that he still has issues with the proportion.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked has he thought about security between the buildings. Mr.
Wilson believes that eyes on the street will help the neighbors patrol the area. The windows do
not face each other.
Page 14 of 63
Rhea Roberts, QQA, stated that members of the advocacy group met with Mr. Wilson. They
appreciated the wood on the structures. Because of low numbers of contributing structures in
that area of the district, they did not have a huge problem with the form and shape. They are
concerned with the garage door on the front fagade and the lack of any front door. Front doors
are common in the district.
A motion was withdrawn for waiving the bylaws.
Mr. Minyard stated for the record that as stated on the application form that all information must
be given to staff no later than three weeks before the meeting. That would mean that all
revisions would be due on September 191h. Mr. Wilson verified that he could meet that deadline.
A motion was made to defer both items at 1003 and 1005 McMath till October 10, 2016 for
further information by Vice Chair Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 absent
(Holder) and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE:
October 10. 2016
On September 19, 2016 Staff received an additional drawing of an entry feature. It will span the
area between the two buildings and function as a gate to the entry area. It will be made of
horizontal white oak boards and have a 'roof' overhang. See the end of the report for more
detailed drawings.
View from northwest
View from southwest
The national register historic district and local ordinance historic district is named "MacArthur
Park". The district was drawn to surround the park on all four sides and take in residential and
commercial areas on all four sides of the park. This site is an important site in the district as it
fronts onto MacArthur Park and is within view of National Historic Landmark Individually Listed
Arsenal building.
The contributing structures on the street are the Law School at 1201 McMath (originally the
UAMS Medical School), the house at 1007 McMath and the house at 923 McMath. In
Arkansas, the out buildings are also shown as contributing as an accessory structure to the
principal structure. They are not contributing in their own right.
Page 15 of 63
Staff inventoried the neighborhood for single family houses with garage doors on the front
fagade of the house - there are none. There are seven detached garages with garage doors
facing the street in the district. These structures are in the rear of properties where carriage
houses were originally sited. The ones that were mentioned in the presentation, The Lincoln
House at 301 E 7th Street, 624 S Rock Street, 1023 Cumberland and 1003 S Scott Street were
built as residential with a carriage house in the rear of the structure. All of these are on corner
lots with the garage doors facing the other street.
The Lincoln House (panoramicphoto)
The Lincoln House, an Italianate structure is shown above with the front fagade facing 7th Street
and the detached garage facing Cumberland Street. The detached garage is to the left in the
photo behind the tree.
Page 16 of 63
624 S Rock is shown above with the front facade facing Rock Street and the detached garage
facing 7th Street. The detached garage is to the right in the photo.
The Bragg Apartments at 1003 S Scott is shown above. This building from is unique in the fact
that the detached garage is located at the far back corner of the lot with the garage accessible
from both street and two garage doors on two fagades. This does fit the pattern in the facade
that the garage is smaller in footprint area, smaller in mass and is located on a corner lot.
Page 17 of 63
1023 S Cumberland is shown above with the front fagade facing Cumberland Street and the
detached garage on the right in the photos facing 11th Street.
These four houses with the accompanying detached garages were a common form at the time.
A larger principal structure was located at the front of the lot and a smaller, in footprint,
detached garage at the rear of the property was either one or two story. The two storied
examples were often used for servants' quarters and later were used as apartments for rental
income. This pattern of houses with detached garages is common in multiple historic districts in
the city. This pattern is not dependent on whether an alley is present. On page 2 of this report,
the Sanborn Maps show multiple accessory buildings along the alley way in the 1000 block of
McMath. The detached garages were built as an accessory structures on the lot. An accessory
structure is built on the same lot as the principal structure; serves the principal building; is
subordinate in area, extent, or purpose. These four examples are perfect examples of
accessory structures.
North Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached 1 East Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage
i
South Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached West Elevation 1011 Scott Street detached garage
Page 18 of 63
This structure is the detached garage at 1003 S Scott Street. This structure does have
corrugated metal in a vertical orientation on the east and south side. This detached garage is to
the rear of the lot on the east and on the property line on the south, has access from the both
streets, and is an accessory structure. The metal siding is on the sides of the garage that is
farthest away from the house and farthest from the streets. The street facing fagades, the north
and west fagade with the garage doors has brick veneer that matches the brick of the house.
The west fagade, a solid wall that is closest to the house, is all brick that matches the house.
Parking of cars does occur in the front setback of some structures that were built as single
family houses in the district and has for some time. This is rare and the only case that Staff
knows of are the houses on the 600 block of Ferry Street. There is not an alley to the rear of
these lots so parking on the street or in the front yards are the only option. At least one house
does not have off street parking. There are also some apartment buildings that only have on
street parking.
The single family row houses that are proposed to be built have only a garage door on the front
of the units. The added entry feature as shown in the revised drawings may not be built until the
second unit is finished as a builder would have to work around it. The entry feature's gate to the
entry area is not very pronounced and will depend on the walkway from the public sidewalk to
announce that this is the entrance to the two units.
Staff inventoried the district and did not find any single family structures with front facing
garages. The houses that have parking in the front yards do not have alley access. 1003 and
1005 McMath have alley access from the rear of the lots. The cover letter states that "This will
be our final application in MacArthur Park Historic District for New Construction." If that is true,
then the floor plans could be modified and the garage doors could be located to the rear of the
structures. In the Site Design section of the guidelines, it states that "Accommodations for
automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood as possible."
Accommodations for automobiles include garage doors. Placing garage doors on the front
fagade of a structure does not make the unobtrusive nor the automobile parked behind it.
Residential parking should be as stated on page 61 of the Guidelines:
"Parking areas and garages for houses should be located in the rear of the house,
with entrance from an alley or from a side driveway. Parking should not be in the
front yard. Original designs, materials, and placement of driveways should be
preserved. If the driveway must lead from the street through a side yard to parking in
the rear, brick or concrete tracks or narrow strips are recommended, with grass or
ground cover filling the median. Side or rear driveways should be gravel or smooth
concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick."
The four examples of detached garages are in keeping with the guidelines since they access
the garage through a side yard and the garage is in the rear of the lot. The guidelines would
suggest that the floor plan be modified so that the garage doors are on the rear of the structure
with access from the already paved alley.
In the Guidelines on page 55, it lists four principles to follow. They are listed on page 4 and 5 of
this report.
9. Building Orientation:
"The fagade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
Page 19 of 63
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld."
The form of 1001 McMath could be viewed as a corner commercial building with residential
uses above which were common in Little Rock in the past. However, the other buildings in
those blocks adhered to a residential setback which accentuated the commercial form on the
corner. Originally there were three houses in the 1000 block of McMath as shown on the
Sanborn maps that had similar front yard setbacks. 1007 McMath is the only one of the three
houses which had uniform setbacks to survive.
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."
In the last hearing, the applicant stated that 1001 McMath was actually 38'-2" tall, three feet
taller than the application showed. The roof on 1001 slants to the east which diminishes the
mass as the viewer looks east. The houses proposed at 1003 and 1005 have a constant
ridgeline of 38'-8". These two houses will be built taller and the farther one is to the east, the
more the height difference will be between the buildings. This would be the tallest structure in
the area of significance.
The guidelines state that "New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic
structures in the area. This includes height and width." These individual structures do not
comply with this statement. The individual houses ratios are unusually tall to their width. If the
entry feature is added, and is deemed to visually combine the structures into one, the overall
height to width could be more in line with other structures in the district.
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 house features a gable roof with a 9/12 pitch. Some historic houses originally had metal
roofs, some standing seam and some metal shingles. The roof shape and material is
appropriate to the district. The entrance area to each unit is to the rear of the structure. The
entry feature that was proposed might serve as the entry to the two units with the contemporary
porch, but the horizontal slats of wood do not differentiate the door versus the rest of the wall
section. More detail will be needed to be provided to assure that this reads as a combined entry
to the units. The windows in the units on three sides are random and lacking rhythm. In the
photos of houses, there is a discernable rhythm in the window placement. There is also a
commonality of window shapes that are rectangular in shape placed vertically on the fagade.
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
Page 20 of 63
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.)
The wall areas are to be either stained white oak, brick, or CorTen corrugated steel siding in a
vertical orientation. Wood siding is a common material in the district. Corrugated metal siding
on a wall surface is found on accessory buildings in the district. Half of 1005 and more than half
of 1003 is proposed to be built out of a material that is found on accessory structures on a non -
dominant fagade.
The standing seam roof proposed was used on several historic structures in the district. The
garage door and entry doors into the units are flush with no glass inserts and no raised panels.
The detailing on this structure will be minimal with the trim around the doors and windows will be
J-trim with 1 %" face. The corner trim will be 3 3/8" wide trim.
This house does not blend with the area of influence nor does it blend with the district as a
whole in the design factors of Siting, Height, Rhythm, Entrance area, and Wall areas. The
added submittal of the entry feature may affect the Proportion, Scale, or Massing of the
structure. The placement of the house on the lot should relate more to the historic house at
1001 McMath. This would be the tallest structure within the area of influence. The rhythm of the
exterior walls on the east, north and south sides are undiscernible. The overall ratio of wall area
to window area is inappropriate with too few windows or the windows being too small. The
scale and massing are also atypical to the neighborhood.
The ordinance states in Section 23-120 (f): "Generally, new construction shall be judged on its
ability to blend with the existing neighborhood and area of influence." With the above listed
concerns, the proposed structure is not appropriate for the district.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: October 10 2016
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item focusing on the changes made to the
application since the last hearing. Commissioner Toni Johnson asked if the QQA had made a
comment on the item. Mr. Minyard read their comments from the approved minutes.
Page Wilson made a presentation. He spoke of context of the area with contributing structures,
zoning, curb cuts, other buildings, and that he did not feel that this was a neighborhood. He
mentioned Form; Orientation; Material; and Mass and Scale; the four items for "New
Construction". He referenced these that are found on page 55 of the Guidelines.
He referenced the gable form of parts of other buildings and showed examples in the
PowerPoint. Mr. Wilson stated that Adam Day gave him help on the design. He extrapolated
the two houses and the space between them as two pens in a dogtrot without the roof.
Page 21 of 63
He handed out drawings that showed the approved PCD site plan that showed proposed
buildings and spoke of different departments and agencies that had input on the Planning
Commission approval.
He talked about the ecology area in the rear of the site with the retention pond. He stated that
the pond could not change. He spoke of four parking spaces off the alley for 1001 McMath. Mr.
Wilson approached the dais and explained the map to Commissioner Johnson. He referred to
the Low Impact Development LID as soft engineering. There is an expansion shown at 1007
McMath in the rear. He has 1007 McMath under a lease to own contract and is unsure whether
or not they will do the expansion. He referred to the open space in the middle of the
development as park space, natural areas, and common area.
He stated that this will be the last application for him, but someone else may represent him or
he may sell the project. He talked about platting and sewer line replatting issues.
He desires to keep open space and show project like it was built over time.
There were no questions from the Commissioner on the site plan.
Commissioner Ted Holder commented that the plan shows trees along McMath and 10th street.
The new curb cuts would get rid of the trees. Mr. Wilson stated that the hackberry on the site
will come out and the maple tree will stay in the front yard of 1007.
Mr. Wilson stated that site plan was done for the City Beautiful Commission (CBC). He planted
eight species of trees which is in excess of the two species required. Two trees would be put
back in on McMath. He stated that he is okay with installing a ribbon driveway for the units. He
also stated he has a few more trees to plant.
Mr. Wilson agreed with Staff that there are no single family houses with garages on the front
fagade. He thinks that they are good examples of how people park in garages off the street.
He spoke of a contributing structure at 11th and Commerce, the ranch house which has a
carport on the side of the house and he questioned what the difference in a carport and a
garage was. The related a portico with a carport. He then spoke of a building at 8th and Rock
which he said belonged to the Terry Mansion. It has garage doors facing the street and the
entry doors to the side. He thinks his proposal is appropriate with garage in the front. He talked
about Bylites garage door.
He brought brick, CorTen steel and wood examples. The stated the CorTen steel was eleven
gauge steel. He put the oak bards together to show how they would be assembled.
Commissioner Johnson asked how the wood would be adhered to the building, would it overlap.
Mr. Wilson said that he did not think he would have to put it on furring strips and that it would not
overlap. He described a staining technique that uses vinegar that he planned on using.
The finish of the white oak is the same, CorTen steel has a little more aging to do than the
sample that the has brought. He may change the brick color. He will not use red, pink or orange
brick on the units. He stated he did not bring the staff report. Commissioner Johnson asked
about the Mayor's letter. Mr. Wilson referred her to the last paragraph of the Mayor's letter. He
discussed the last paragraph of the Mayor's letter. Mr. Wilson believes he is following the
guidelines with new construction.
Page 22 of 63
Mr. Wilson handed out a copy of the graphic from the Heiple Wiedower Study. He believes that
this is how a neighborhood should look overtime.
Mr. Wilson stated that parking should be unobtrusive. The Commission will decide 'what'
unobtrusive is. He talked about progression of architectural styles in the district. He stated that
he has to follow Public Works guidelines on curb cuts.
Mr. Wilson believes that this building is not the tallest. He had a list of the buildings that he
believes are taller than his. He ended his presentation with the Museum of Black History on the
Mall in Washington DC. This is what something old and something new look I like together. He
quoted section B, page 55, of the New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings
guidelines on page 55 of the Guidelines. Concerning Building Orientation, with UU zoning, he
believes it should line up with 1001 McMath instead of 1007 McMath. He mentioned that 1009
was close to the street.
On Building Mass and Scale, the thought he met the threshold with entries in the rear. The
thought his new entry feature that tied the building together. On Building Form, he referenced
the gable form and dog trot integrations. On Building Materials, he believes he is similar. He
then handed out a picture of CorTen steel staining seam metal on a house.
Mr. Wilson stated he was fronting MacArthur Park. He said that he has spent eleven years on
the MacArthur Park group. He said he recruited Sharon Priest to the MacArthur Park Group.
He references the Park as the core or spoke of neighborhood. He stated nobody had worked
harder to make a difference for MacPark. He spoke of contributions to other areas and talked
about the condition of the park.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked him to stay on topic with his presentation. He thinks that
his building will not harm the park. The area will never go back to the density that was there
before. He is trying to add some density back to the neighborhood.
Commissioner Holder suggested switching the garage doors. Commissioner Holder stated that
the applicant wanted open spaces and the space in the rear is not that big in comparison to the
very large open space of the park across the street. He asked if Mr. Wilson could change
parking in the rear to be angled and have enough space to have driveways to the garages in the
back of the buildings. Mr. Wilson said he did not have enough room to add more parking.
Commissioner Holder believes that he does.
Vice Chair Russell asked if the garages are required for the project. Mr. Wilson stated that they
were for potential buyers. Vice Chair Russell stated that in UU zoning, off street parking is not
required. He continued that the argument is against curb cuts at the front of the house. He did
not believe that people moved to MacArthur Park in order to park in their garages. He asked
again if garages are required for the project. Would it be a detriment on the project? Vice Chair
Russell asked if he would be willing to get rid of the garages. Mr. Wilson said maybe but his
project must be competitive. Row houses with garages are more desirable. Vice Chair Russell
commented on the guests would have to come down alley between houses.
Chair BJ Bowen asked if there was a way to angle the parking in the rear. Mr. Wilson spoke
about placement of utilities and the green space. Mr. Wilson stated he believes in sustainability
and urban infill.
Page 23 of 63
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked where the property line in relation to the 10 foot separation is.
Mr. Wilson stated he must maintain the 10 foot separation between buildings. Commissioner
Kelley asked can he not use that 10 foot to use as a driveway. A discussion followed with Mr.
Wilson stating that he could not use those areas as driveways.
Commissioner Holder asked if Mr. Wilson could not angle four spaces, could he install four
parallel spaces and make room for the driveways to access the garages from the rear. Vice
Chair Russell stated that he would have to remove a building. Mr. Wilson stated that he could
put a storage unit in that area where the site plan shows a building.
Commissioner Johnson does not see that much difference in the revised plan except for entry
feature. Mr. Wilson thinks it will read as one building. Commissioner Johnson thinks the rhythm
and form are the two main things she is concerned about. The placement on the lot should
relate more to the historic house. The ratio of wall to window area is inappropriate in her view;
the windows are too small or too few. A big concern for her is the garage door on front.
Commissioner Bowen thinks a lot of the Commissioners are concerned with the garage door on
the front.
Commissioner Holder stated that new construction should not replicate but blend. Some
obviously does not blend. The two mobile homes that have been joined together across from
his house do not blend. The garage door on this application is very prominent. It looks like a
storage unit. It does not read like a house. He can see the form but would like the house to
have more windows. He also brought up the point that a car could park in front of the garage
door_ He summarized that the house did not blend.
Mr. Wilson asked if it was more desirable to have a garage door or to park off street. He
mentioned the ranch house and on -street parking. Commissioner Holder stated that there was
nothing like this in the district in relation to parking. He continued that there should be a
consideration of proximity to the park. This project does, not fit or blend. The garage doors are
his biggest concern.
Commissioner Johnson stated that she assumed that he would change his submittals. She said
that she was concerned about the location and number of porches. She would like to see two
porches in relation to the form of the buildings, the entrances to the buildings.
Vice Chair Russell asked if abstraction of form is read as single building. Is there an objection
to having a single porch? Commissioner Johnson responded that it would depend on how it is
designed. If this is it, this design is not compatible within the district. She does not see the
entry feature as a porch.
Mr. Wilson stated that he could submit a new design and may delete the garages. He stated
that he wanted to defer these applications.
Commissioner Holder stated that these may be built one at a time and that could affect the
design or order in which it was built. Vice Chair Russell stated the order of construction of the
applicant is not our concern. Commissioner Holder stated that it was.
Page 24 of 63
Debra Weldon, City Attorney's office, stated that these are two separate buildings and two
applications. Maybe if the buildings were designed to be connected together in some way, they
ought to be considered together.
Adam Day, who worked on the project, spoke of the building being a record of our time. People
will not build old Victorian structures.
Jeff Horton, an architect, voiced support of the application.
Chair Bowen stated that the applicant has made a request to defer the item to the next meeting
Vice Chair Russell stated in regards to Building Orientation, he had some concern with the
relationship between the two applications. Some thought might be taken to shift the buildings
back getting closer to 1007. On the Building Mass and Scale, some Commissioners have an
issue with the vertical height to the width. He made an argument for the screen wall as it needs
to be read as a singular mass. On Building Materials, the CorTen steel appears to rust, but it is
a patina. It will stabilize and protect material.
Mr. Wilson stated he wanted to defer application to next meeting. Vice Chair Russell made a
motion to defer both applications to the November 2016 hearing and Commissioner Kelley
seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: November 14 2016
Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on October 14, 2016 asking for a deferral
to the December 2016 agenda.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the December 12,
2016 agenda.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 14. 2016
The ,applicant requested a deferral to the November 2015 hearing via email on October 14,
2016. A motion was made to accept the deferral to the December 2016 hearing by Vice Chair
Jeremiah Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Ted Holder. The motion passed with a
vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes and 2 open positions.
STAFF UPDATE: December 12 2016
Staff received an email from Mr. William Page Wilson on November 18, 2016 asking for a
deferral to the January 2017 agenda. His email stated: We do not have time to update our
plans for 1003-1005 McMath Ave. I would like to defer to January 2017. If we change the plan
completely, I think we will request a withdrawal. Consider this as our deferral. We will inform
staff should we decide to change plan entirely. Sincerely, Page
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the deferral to the January 9,
2017 agenda unless the application is to change completely. If that is the case, Staff
recommends withdrawal.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 12 2016
The applicant, Page Wilson, approached the podium and stated that he wanted to withdraw his
application at this time. Brian Minyard, Staff, asked him to verify if he was asking to withdraw
both items. He replied yes.
Page 25 of 63
Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to waive the bylaws in reference to Section 7
Withdrawals to allow a withdrawal of two items without the request being submitted in writing
more than five days in advance of the hearing. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote
passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick).
Commissioner Toni Johnson made a motion to withdraw the items at 1003 and 1005 McMath
without prejudice. Vice Chair Russell seconded and the vote passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0
noes, 1 open position and 1 recusal (Frederick).
Page 26 of 63