HDC_08 10 2015Page 1 of 17
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, August 10, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Vice Chair BJ Bowen
Page Wilson
Jennifer Carman
Jeremiah Russell
Rebecca Pekar
Dick Kelley
Members Absent: Chair Toni Johnson
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Rhea Roberts
Keith Canfield
Jeff Horton
David Anderson
Matt Gardner
William Wooten
Rena Wooten
Carrie Wilson
Matt Snyder
Richard Butler
Charles Murratt
Vice Chair BJ Bowen read the following statement: Any item that is presented before the
Historic District Commission must have affirmative votes from the majority of the entire
commission to be approved, that is 4 or more yes votes no matter how many commissioners are
in attendance. In the case that there are five or less commissioners present, the commission
offers any applicant the opportunity to defer to the next available meeting if they wish. This
deferral will be at the commission’s expense. However, if any part of the item is presented or
discussed, the deferral will be at the applicant’s expense. No applicants stated they wished to
defer.
Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Page 2 of 17
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Jeremiah Russell to approve the minutes of June 8, 2015
as submitted. Commissioner Page Wilson seconded and the minutes were approved with a
vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent.
Brian Minyard, Staff, read into the record the changes to the minutes of July 13, 2015. Page 5
on storm window item, line 3, it should read: “and the Commission is fulfilling its’ duties as a
CLG. Ms. Weldon stated that the Commission requested an AHPP representative...
“Debra Weldon stated that the Commission would not be able to determine whether or not it
was a material change if they cannot see the difference between the two options.” Farther
down it should read, “Mr. Minyard asked Ms. Weldon if the Commission could look at the
materials and hear the item on the same evening. She believes that the motion to reconsider
should be made before the item is to be heard.”
Changes will be made to reflect new commissioners and the citizens present. A motion was
made by Commissioner Page Wilson to approve the minutes of July 13, 2015 as revised.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 6
ayes and 1 absent.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
Page 3 of 17
DATE: August 10, 2015
APPLICANT: William Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings
ADDRESS: 1001 McMath
COA REQUEST: Change to siding material
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 application is for a change in the siding material to a
building that is currently under construction. This is an
amendment to a previously approved Certificate of
Appropriateness. The approved siding is a Hardie
cement fiber board lap plank siding and the proposed is a
steel siding with a Galvalume finish in a 3” mini-rib siding
profile installed horizontally.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On December 9, 2013, The HDC denied an application
on this site for a three story mixed use building with
vertical ribbed metal siding.
On February 10, 2014, The HDC denied an application on this site for essentially the same
three story mixed use building with horizontal ribbed metal siding.
On March 10, 2014, The HDC approved an application on this site for essentially the same
three story mixed use building with horizontal Hardie plank lap siding.
This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2014 and was
approved by the Board of Directors on April 15, 2014.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
Location of Project
Page 4 of 17
Approved construction set of west and north elevations
Approved construction set of east and south elevations
Page 5 of 17
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This application is for a change in the siding material to a building that is currently under
construction. This application is to amend the current COA to change the siding on the first,
second and third floors from the approved Hardie cement fiber board lap plank siding to the
proposed steel siding with a Galvalume finish in a 3” mini-rib siding profile installed horizontally.
Galvalume is a trade name for steel siding that has a coating of 55% Aluminum-Zinc alloy that
is available in various colors and profiles. The siding covers part of the first floor above the
brick. The accent panels will not change, nor will the brick on the first floor, nor the windows
and doors, nor any other part of the façade except the lap plank siding.
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
Site from northwest
Page 6 of 17
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.
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 71 under Section VII. Guidelines for Commercial Structures:
C. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
New…construction… shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9)
Construction of new commercial buildings should follow the basic guidelines
established in Section V: Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and
Detached New Construction. Of particular concern to commercial infill are the
building orientation (aligning the storefront with neighboring structures); building
mass, scale, and form; placement of entrances and windows, and building materials.
All should be compatible with the commercial neighborhood.
The commercial guidelines were included as a reference since the building is part commercial
and part residential.
Page 7 of 17
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 façade 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.
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.)
Page 8 of 17
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
The Architectural Style, General design, Siting, Height, Proportion, Rhythm, Roof area,
Entrance area, Scale and Massing of the building was reviewed and approved in March 2014,
fifteen months ago. This application is for a change from Hardie board plank lap siding to a
metal horizontal ribbed siding. This is reviewed under the following factors.
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
The Guidelines state on page 55:
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.
The cover letter states that this steel siding will “preserve this mixed-use building more
effectively than fiber cement or wood.”
Above, as the guidelines clearly state, the building materials specified for this project are not
appropriate for the district. Commercial buildings in the district have been historically faced in
Page 9 of 17
brick. Later one story commercial buildings in the 1950’s and 60’s were made of block (9th and
Rock and 614 E 6th). The building at 9th and Rock, which had part of the building removed for
the liquor store drive thru, was faced in brick to blend with the existing neighboring buildings
even before the district was initiated.
The only historic building in the district that
has corrugated metal siding, of which Staff is
aware, is a detached garage at 10th and
Scott at a residential property. It is a one
story building that sits off the road at the back
corner of the property. The two garage doors
face the street, so less of the corrugated
metal siding is visible from the 10th Street.
Metal corrugated siding, when installed with
a horizontal orientation, does give a
horizontal shadow line as a result of the
corrugations on the metal. This horizontal
shadow line is probably a different scale than
the lap siding that would have been installed.
The size of the lap siding previously
approved was not specified, but the drawings
measured 10”. The proposed mini-Rib siding
will produce a shadow line every six inches.
Having more than two out of three stories
clad in corrugated metal siding is not
appropriate for the district.
WALL AREAS / FACADE
The west and north side of the building will be always visible from the street. The south and
east façades of the building may be obscured by additional buildings when they are built. The
west façade is taller than the east wall because of the roof pitch.
DETAILING
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.)
Detail of proposed metal siding
Page 10 of 17
The windows and doors will be trimmed out with McElroy 1” J-mold break metal trim. This
trim work is small in scale.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial
COMMISSION ACTION: August 10, 2015
Mr. Brian Minyard, Staff, stated that Commissioner Wilson is leaving the room due to a conflict
of interest since he owns this property. Mr. Minyard made the comment that there will only be
five members present to vote on this item and wanted to verify if they wanted to proceed with
the item. Mr. Minyard asked if we were going to hear the item and Matt Snyder stated they
were. Mr. Snyder will be representing the applicant for this item.
Mr. Minyard, Staff, presented the item and noted that the only item for discussion was the
change in siding materials, not the brick and not the Hardie panel accent panels. The
application is for the McElroy Mini-rib with galvalume finish on it. The project is under
construction. In the Guidelines, the Commission will be looking at Building Materials, Wall areas
and Detailing. Those are the only three of the eleven factors in the ordinance to be reviewed
tonight. Mr. Minyard spoke of building materials of historic commercial buildings and also
mentioned the only historic building in the district with corrugated metal siding that staff is aware
is an accessory building, a garage structure.
Mr. Minyard continued that when the corrugated metal is installed in a horizontal manner, it
does give a horizontal shadow line as a result of the corrugations on the metal. This horizontal
shadow line is probably a different scale than the shadow line of the lap siding that would have
been installed. The size of the lap siding previously approved was not specified. The drawing
measured at ten inches and the mini-rib will produce a shadow line every six inches. Having
two of three stories clad in metal siding is not appropriate for the district. The west and north
sides of the structure will always be visible from t he street. The east and south side of the
building may be obscured if additional buildings are built.
On detailing, the guidelines state that the detailing is inappropriate with the application of the J-
mold trim. The trim work is small in scale. Typically, a larger scale trim is associated with the
hardie plank siding, they are asking for the one inch J-mold trim.
Mr. Minyard also noted that since the item was distributed last week, Staff did receive a letter
from Dale Pekar stating his opposition to the item. Mr. Minyard read part of the letter
referencing the materials and maintenance issues.
Mr. Minyard also stated he received a letter last week from Clint Bailey, the architect for the
project, which stated Mr. Bailey supported the request in the change in materials and that the
applicant recently became aware of the discrepancy in the originally proposed siding material
and the current building code. Mr. Minyard continued to read part of the letter to the
Commission.
Mr. Minyard stated that he downloaded the ESR-2290 document and from what Mr. Minyard
could gather, it is dependent upon the size of the Hardi-plank to be installed, how it is installed,
what size of nails or screws, whether it is attached into a wood stud or a metal stud, or if it is
attached to the sheathing that is attached to the studs. There are a lot of variables. The permit
Page 11 of 17
set does not specify the size of the Hardi-plank to be installed nor does it specify if it is to be
attached to the sheathing or into the studs. There are questions that hopefully the
representative will be able to answer.
Mr. Minyard then reviewed the previous actions on this site. Staff maintains the
recommendation of denial for the change of materials.
Matt Snyder, of Rogers, Arkansas, made a presentation. Mr. Snyder stated that they were not
going to ask for a galvalume finish on the metal, they had not necessarily designated a color,
more likely they would use a Kynar/Floropon finish rather than the clear coat galvalume finish.
The J-trim around the windows and doors is same as had been approved earlier.
Mr. Snyder described the overall style of the building for the new commissioners utilizing a
PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Snyder referenced the letter from Mr. Bailey stating the Hardi-
plank boards to be 8¼” boards nailed into studs 16” on center. The siding material was not able
to obtain the 115 wind speed when the specs stated 85.
Mr. Snyder continued his presentation on the location of the project in relation to the rest of the
district. Mr. Snyder said that no buildings showed up as contributing on the property.
Mr. Snyder referenced the guidelines on page 41 which stated that contributing structures
should be held to a higher standard. Mr. Snyder commented that it implies that non-contributing
structures should be held to a lesser standard. He read part of the Secretary of Interior
Standards that is on page 55 of the guidelines. Mr. Snyder noted several references to
materials that are similar to historic materials. Mr. Snyder spoke of the eleven properties in the
area, three of which are contributing. Mr. Snyder spoke of the buildings in the area.
Mr. Snyder spoke of lap siding which is of varying width in the district. They found from two to
seven inch size in the district. Mr. Snyder spoke of maintenance issues of wood siding. Mr.
Snyder then spoke of Hardie-plank siding being more durable, and if its maintenance and
installation issues. Mr. Snyder then showed several photos of projects with metal siding. Vice
Chair BJ Bowen asked where the photos were taken. Mr. Snyder pointed out which ones were
local and which were not.
Mr. Snyder spoke of what was ‘similar’. Mr. Snyder continued that with this contemporary
building, they tried to use similar materials. Mr. Snyder spoke of the history of the project with
the different roof forms. Mr. Snyder stated that they wanted to have a two to three inch
exposure between the ribs of the metal which he feels is closer to the districts historic scale.
Mr. Snyder quoted the Secretary of the Interior Standards.
There were questions from the commissioners. Vice Chair Bowen asked if they used screws
versus nails, would it make a difference. Mr. Snyder stated that it might make a slight
difference, but they were looking for the most efficient way which was using nails. The applicant
was using prefinished product, and the screws would not be flush when installed which might
produce a wave in the siding. The workmen use nails with a thin head and don’t set the nail in
too far. Mr. Snyder did not evaluate screws because they were not considered an option in this
project.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked about the first time the application for metal siding was denied
when the siding was placed horizontally. What changed between then and now? Why go back
to the metal? Mr. Snyder responded that there was a different roof line than before and there
Page 12 of 17
were different members on the Commission to which the roof was an issue. Mr. Snyder
mentioned the vinyl siding policy which Mr. Snyder felt was brought up out of context. The form
of the building is different because of the roof and the roof played a part. Mr. Snyder showed a
photo of the previous submittals and what was approved previously.
Commissioner Rebecca Pekar asked what will happen if the siding does not hold up? Mr.
Snyder said that according to code, the siding needs to withstand 115 miles per hour (mph)
winds for failure. If the product were going to fail, it would be flying through the air causing
property damage. Commissioner Pekar asked if the applicant had explored other materials, for
example, stucco. Mr. Snyder said that the metal siding was more similar to wood and that
stucco was more of a reach than before because of the flat finish of the material. Commissioner
Pekar asked about the material being applied to a particular wall or height on the wall. Mr.
Snyder described the ESR 2290 report and stated that the ICC does the science behind the
report. That gives the architects the data to make an informed decision. Commissioner Pekar
asked if Hardie makes the recommendations. Mr. Snyder stated that it is left to the ICC for
liability. Commissioner Kelley asked why this was not discovered originally when it was
approved. Mr. Snyder said that the expense was not spent on detailed drawings at that time.
When going through the building permit process, the detail was found.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell stated that on February 10, 2014 there was a code change and
codes become more restrictive. Mr. Snyder stated that the codes changed from 90 to 115 miles
per hour for new code. Mr. Snyder said that he was unaware of exactly what that meant, but
there was a larger gap to close.
Commissioner Russell stated that the metal siding is more durable and will have virtually no
maintenance for owner. The metal siding will appear to be painted wood siding from the
ground. Commissioner Russell continued to list maintenance issues with the Hardi-plank siding,
even if wind speed was not a factor.
Vice Chair Bowen asked if there were citizens present to speak for the application. He asked
them to state their name for the record and where they lived.
Charles Marratt, 1900 Arch Street, started by telling which buildings and the number of buildings
that he had restored in the Quapaw area. Mr. Marratt also spoke of how many projects Mr.
Marratt had going on at this time. Mr. Marratt noted problems with Hardi-board. Mr. Marratt
stated that the Commission should encourage developers like Page Wilson. Mr. Marratt stated
that those that know him know he speaks his mind and that “Page can be a pain in the ass.”
But, Mr. Wilson continually is coming up with new ideas. Mr. Wilson has taken a real interest
and a practical solution to buildings that can be an enhancement to the district. Mr. Marratt
spoke of trying to encourage more people to invest in the area. Mr. Marratt said that this
building is inappropriate in other areas of the district, but not where it sits. The point is to look
for alternative materials and develop new ideas and development.
William Wooten, 1300 Arch Street, stated that Mr. Wooten lives in a metal house that Jeff
Horton designed and Chares Marratt built. It is five years old. Mr. Wooten noted no problems
with the metal or oil canning. Mr. Wooten spoke of houses being restored and a new house that
is being built next door. After Mr. Murratt spoke when he was not recognized, Mr. Minyard
interrupted and stated that if a citizen wanted to speak they should come to the microphone. Mr.
Wooten continued that that his only complaint living in a metal siding was that it makes his
phone go crazy.
Page 13 of 17
Richard Butler, 417 E 10th Street, stated he has been a resident since 1963 and that he helped
draft the original ordinance. At that time, the Commission was not concerned with new
construction. Mr. Butler served 4 or 5 terms on the State Review Board and is familiar with the
Secretary of Interior Standards. Mr. Butler continued that the ordinance has been amended to
deal with new construction. Mr. Butler said that the Commission should encourage new
construction and economic future is hanging in the balance. Mr. Butler stated that Page Wilson
is innovative, uses durable materials, and he supports the application.
Keith Canfield, 1414 Rock Street, offered two perspectives. 1) Mr. Canfield stated that he is a
member of the Parks Commission and is the volunteer park ranger at MacArthur Park. There is
a Master plan for MacArthur Park and the development of the edges is a part of that plan. The
Park should be the focus of this part of town. Mr. Canfield said that little is to be proud of on
that side except the Law School. 2) On the choice of materials, Mr. Canfield served with the
Clinton Foundation building 130 houses in New Orleans after Katrina. Mr. Canfield saw a lot of
wind damage. Historic materials are not always the best choice. From 85 to 115 mph is the
difference of being salvageable or destroyed. Mr. Canfield is in support of the application.
Vice Chair Bowen asked if there were citizens present to speak in opposition to the application.
No citizens chose to speak.
Mr. Minyard had a question to ask the representative of the application. Mr. Minyard noted that
in the cover letter, the material stated was Multi-core galvalume with a 7/8 inch profile was to be
used. Mr. Minyard read part of the cover letter aloud. Mr. Minyard continued that the handouts
that were provided with the application have the Mini-Rib circled which is 3/8” thick with a 3”
wide corrugation. Which one is the applicant using? Mr. Snyder answered that the confusion is
coming from trying to find something that had not been looked at before. Mr. Snyder showed
the commission today the Multi-core. The applicant would like to use either one but Mr. Snyder
would choose the Multicore. Mr. Minyard stated for clarity that the Multi-core is serpentine in
profile and the Mini-rib is angular. Mr. Minyard asked if it was to be painted with the
Kynar/Floropon coating from the factory. The answer was yes.
Commissioner Kelley asked is that in the staff report? Mr. Minyard stated it is not in the
application packet. Mr. Minyard asked if was safe to say that the profile of the Multi-core was
similar to what he would call a tin roof. Mr. Minyard clarified, not the material, just the profile.
Mr. Snyder said it was a slightly different size but a similar shape. The material requested has a
larger profile. Mr. Minyard said he was just trying to relate to the commissioners the profile of
the material.
Commissioner Russell asked if they could go through the slides again. Mr. Snyder went
through the images again. Mr. Snyder described the slide where the Multi-core was juxtaposed
with the wood siding. Commissioner Russell stated that the material looks like siding. Mr.
Snyder stated that the project, from farther away looks more like lap siding.
Vice Chair Bowen asked will the project continue if the siding change is not approved? Mr.
Snyder said it will continue, but not with Hardie siding.
Commissioner Kelley asked if they had a brochure with specifications on the Multi-core. Mr.
Snyder said if the computer has internet access, they could bring on up on the screen. At this
time, Mr. Minyard went to the AV station computer and brought up a Google search engine
screen. David Anderson googled the McElroy site.
Page 14 of 17
Commissioner Russell asked if there were any objections by the applicant to use the Mini-rib.
Mr. Snyder said no.
Commissioner Pekar asked if the applicant could not meet code putting the Hardi-plank siding
on the building. Mr. Snyder said to his knowledge that was the case. She asked him if he knew
for sure. He replied “Who knows anything for sure?” Mr. Snyder said that the guy scanning the
drawings for life safety building codes says that the siding won’t. Vice Chair Bowen asked what
the applicant was going to do if they were denied. Mr. Snyder said he did not know at this time.
Commissioner Kelley stated that on the brochure the metal siding was exposed fastener panels.
Mr. Snyder said that he did not see any fasteners in the images shown today. Mr. Snyder said
that it was a screw that hides in the shadow of the metal and that you would probably never see
the screws. Mr. Snyder said that all of the metal was 10-12 feet of the ground with none on the
ground level.
At this time, Mr. Anderson had found a photo of the Multi-core on the website. Mr. Snyder
referred to the item on the screen with the profile of .875 inch by 2 5/8 inch repeat.
Commissioner Russell stated he would prefer the Mini-rib. Mr. Snyder stated that without the
applicant here, he believes that was his intent based on the correspondence that was sent to
Mr. Minyard. Mr. Snyder continued that if you could not do an either or, that would be the one to
consider.
Jeff Horton, 1219 Spring Street, stated that the mini-rib is on the Children’s Center on Roosevelt
Road (part of the Our House complex). It is run on a vertical pattern instead of horizontal.
Vice Chair Bowen asked if there was any further discussion. There was none. Vice Chair
Bowen asked for a motion to be made.
There was a motion made by Commissioner Russell to approve the application with the Mini-rib
siding which closely mimics the two inch siding found throughout MacArthur Park. Staff asked
him if he meant Multi-core. Commissioner Russell stated no, he meant Mini-rib. There was no
second for the motion. Vice Chair Bowen asked for some guidance from Staff. Mr. Minyard
stated that the application was for Multi-core not Mini-rib. The Applicant has not amended the
application to the Mini-rib. The other question is that if a motion does not get a second. Debra
Weldon stated that a motion fails with a lack of a second, but that does not mean that another
motion could not be made.
Vice Chair asked Mr. Snyder if he wanted to change his application to have Mini-rib siding. He
said he wanted to change the application.
Commissioner Jennifer Carman asked which siding they were voting on. Commissioner
Carman said that the photos they were shown were of the Multi-core, not the mini-rib. Mr.
Snyder said he was not aware of the discrepancy in the product submitted, because the original
application was for Multi-core. The applicant would be happy with either product. Mr. Minyard
was asked exactly what the application was. Mr. Minyard said that the cover letter stated Multi-
core, the application says Multi-core, but the submittals say Mini-rib. Mr. Minyard continued that
Mr. Minyard wanted to ask the applicant in the public hearing exactly what they wanted and a
few minutes ago Mr. Snyder said Multi-core. Ms. Weldon said that since the application stated
Multi-core, Mr. Snyder would have to amend his application to use the Mini-rib. Mr. Snyder
amended the application to Mini-rib. Vice Chair Bowen asked for a motion. Commissioner
Russell made a motion to approve the application with Mini-rib siding with factory provided
Page 15 of 17
Kynar finish to mimic horizontal wood siding. Commissioner Carman seconded. Vice Chair
Bowen started to ask about a different type of vote, but Mr. Minyard stated the raising their
hands would be sufficient. With a raised hand vote, there were 2 ayes (Russell and Carman),
three noes (Kelley, Bowen, and Pekar), one absent (Johnson) and one recusal (Wilson).
Ms. Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated that the Commissioners needed to state for the
record why they voted no. Vice Chair Bowen stated the material was not appropriate for the
district, Commissioner Kelley stated the material was not appropriate, and Commissioner Pekar
stated the material was incongruous, not appropriate and not a historic material.
Commissioner Russell stated that he would like to ask the Commission why metal siding was
not appropriate and Hardie siding which is hazardous to environment was. Ms. Weldon stated
that this was discussion after the vote. Ms. Weldon instructed Vice Chair Bowen that he could
open the discussion up again, but the public hearing portion was closed. It has been voted on.
Vice Chair Bowen said that as far as he was concerned, the item was closed.
He asked if Staff would be sending the applicant a letter to inform them of the outcome, and
Staff replied yes.
Page 16 of 17
V. Other Matters
Preservation Plan Implementation update
That update was emailed to the commissioners last week. The next meeting is Friday after
next.
Enforcement issues
There were none to bring to the Commission at this time.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff did not write any this month.
Reconsideration of the Storm Windows at 1201 Commerce
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission about the change between the
last hearing and this one concerning the storm windows. Note: Commissioner Wilson returned
to the room at this time. He covered the letter from the AHPP and the staff report from before.
He also detailed the differences between the two different types of storm windows. Staff
believes with the approval letter from Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (AHPP), the
holder of the façade easement, and with the change in design of the storm windows to a low
profile design, that this item should be reheard at the next monthly meeting.
Vice Chair BJ Bowen asked Matt Gardner why he did not have AHPP sign off on it before
coming to the Commission the first time. Mr. Gardner said that he knew he would have to have
the AHPP approval and probably should have. He apologized for not doing so.
Commissioner Rebecca Pekar made a motion to reconsider the application and Commissioner
Dick Kelley seconded. The vote was 5 ayes and one no (Russell). The item failed because the
bylaws state that the reconsideration must be unanimous. Commissioner Wilson asked for
clarification of the vote. Mr. Minyard stated that the bylaws state the vote to reconsider must be
unanimous. It was not, therefore it failed.
Matt Gardner, Parks and Recreation, stated that he would not wait until next year to file again
on this item.
Keith Canfield, spoke of the history of the hostel. He spoke of volunteering and volunteer
funding and the public private partnership of the effort. He said that the order in which things
were done was not optimal, but to please reconsider the reconsideration of the item. Vice Chair
Bowen made the comment that if interior storm windows were installed, they would not come to
the Commission for approval.
Commissioner Russell stated for the record that to reconsider there must be a significant
change and there is not a significant change.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication.
Vice Chair Bowen said that he would entertain a motion to adjourn and after a short break they
would convene for a work session on the guidelines revision in the Sister Cities Conference
Room.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:30 p.m.
Attest:
O�Iuku)/�
Chair
7
Secretary/Staff
Dam,
q , (L� - 7c (,
Date
Page 17 of 17