HDC_11 11 2005DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTE RECORD
Friday, November 11, 2005, 5:00 p.m.
Sister Cities' Conference Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
A Quorum was present being three (3) in number.
Members Present: Carolyn Newbern
Job Serebrov
Kay Tatum
Members Absent: Marshall Peters
Wesley Walls
City Attorney: Deborah Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Tony Bozynski
II. Approval of Minutes
a. October 6, 2005
Commissioner Tatum made a motion for approval of the minutes as
submitted, Commissioner Serebrov seconded. The Minutes were approved
3 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent.
b. May 5, 2005
The minutes of September 1, 2005 will be presented at the next meeting.
III. Finding of Compliance with Notice Requirements of all Subjects
There are no new items on the agenda: therefore this is non-applicable.
IV. New Certificates of Appropriateness:
1
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC
DISTRICT
COMMISSION
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
DATE: October 6, 2005
APPLICANT: Frieda Tirado
ADDRESS: 504 East 6t" Street, Little Rock, AR 72202
COA Enclose a wrought iron enclosure on the south entrance.
REQUEST:
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at
504 East 6th Street. The property's
legal description is "Part of Trapnall
Block in Stevenson's Addition to the
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas: described as: Beginning
on the North line east of 6 "' Street
at a point which is 260 feet West of
the centerline of Sherman Street;
run thence West on the said North
line of East 6th Street a distance of
60 feet; then North at right angles
124 feet; thence East at right angles
60 feet; then South 124 feet to the
point of beginning. EXCEPT a strip
off the east side 1 1/2 feet wide."
The building is a c 1920's The propety at 504 East 6th Street.
Craftsman style apartment house and is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District. The Craftsman style became the most common
architectural style in America in the early part of the 20th century and often coupled with
the Bungalow House type. Craftsman Bungalows are characterized by irregular plans
with low- pitched gable or hipped roofs, often with shed dormers. Windows are double
hung-sash with six vertical lights in the top sash and a single light bottom sash. In many
examples, rafter ends and knee braces are visible below.
2
ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): Two
This building has been involved in previous COA applications which has resulted in the
demolition of an accessory building, construction of a paved parking area,
reconstruction of a porch overhang, removal of inappropriate window shutters, and the
painting of the exterior.
This application is to allow for the addition of an iron enclosure over the front
entranceway of the building to provide for added security.
ANALYSIS: The design guidelines list several items that are relevant to this case.
Most notably are the door design guidelines. Historically the Design Guidelines have
always viewed the primary facade as being the most important element of the structure.
Presently the front entrance is set back in the building four feet and covered with a
portico. The inner door has five vertical lights and a three light transom.
The design guidelines have specific guidelines relating to the installation of security
doors. stating that security doors "should not be located on the primary fagades" and
should be "full -view, without ornate or decorative grill work." Additionally graphics
indicate examples of acceptable and unacceptable security door designs.
NO NO YES
Storm and securily doors should not obscure or conccal the entrance.
Excerpt from the Design Guidelines
While this is not a security door there are commonalities. This iron enclosure obscures
the front door and architectural features, as does a bad storm or security door. The
applicant has indicated that the proposed iron enclosure will be 5 feet wide by 9 feet tall.
It will be divided into two "sections," one on the top (2 feet by 5 feet), which will have a
half circle ornamental iron pattern, and the bottom (7 feet by 5 feet), which will have a
vertical pattern of ornamental iron bars. These bars our 1/2 inch in diameter. The
applicant has indicated that the door will be model # 13-155-3 and made by King
Architectural Metals.
The proposed iron design does not reflect any of the architectural features of the door or
transoms. It is a totally foreign design element being introduced to a contributing
3
ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): Two
structure. The round sunburst does not match the transom, the proposed iron gate is a
double hung door that does not match the existing single door behind.
The applicant has also indicated that the
proposed iron enclosure will be located flush
with the current entryway opening creating a
non - weather resistant entranceway at the front
entry. Craftsman construction styles on
buildings of moderate means were based off of
simplicity and typically did not feature separate
or elaborate entryways. Since the iron
enclosure will be located flush with the front
facade, it will be visible from multiple angles on
East 6th Street. The proposed iron enclosure
will obscure the front door and entranceway.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND
REACTION: At the time of distribution, there
were no comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff
recommends denial of the application because it
will obscure the entranceway, the front door,
and is not in character with adjacent Craftsman
apartment buildings.
Existing front door.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005
Staff noted that the notices were compliant with requirements. Brian Minyard, HDC
Staff, made a presentation to the commission.
Commissioner Marshall Peters stated. that he had a conflict of interest in this item and
would recuse himself.
John Jerrard, representing the applicant, made a presentation to the commission. He
stated that the main entrance for the complex is on the west side. The front door (the
one facing south) enters into one apartment only. People stay there on stormy nights.
The enclosure would prohibit sleeping and ringing of the doorbells. He continued to
state that he wanted to make the design light and open.
Commissioner Carolyn Newbern asked about the materials. Mr. Jerrard stated that it
was iron, with five inch spacing of the vertical bars.
There were no persons there for public comment.
4
ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): Four
There were no persons there for public comment.
Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she thought that the enclosure was not
compatible. She asked if there were other enclosures. Mr. Jerrard answered that
regular security doors would not solve the problem. The solution that they have
proposed does not fit the definition of a security door. Commissioner Job Serebrov
stated that there was a problem and that he could sympathize with the problem.
Commissioner Wesley Walls seconded the position stated by Commissioner Serebrov.
He was concerned that the design of the doors does not match the "Craftsman"
building, but continued that the portico on the front was not a craftsman detail. He
continued that this crosses the border from storm door to bars on windows.
Commissioner Carolyn Newbern pointed to the graphics included in the agenda in the
analysis section. She stated that they conflict with the design and asked where it was to
be installed. Mr. Jerrard stated that it would be installed behind the columns six inches
back from the front of the brick.
Commissioner Walls asked where the door was in relation to the enclosure. Mr. Jerrard
answered that the door sits back four and one half feet. Commissioner Newbern asked
how wide the enclosure was. Mr.. Jerrard answered about five feet.
Commissioner Walls asked if the door would be used. Mr. Jerrard commented that it
would probably not. Commissioner Tatum asked if it had to be operable for fire code
issues. Mr. Jerrard answered no. Commissioner Newbern asked if there was an
operable doorbell. Frida Tirado, owner of the project, interjected that the people will
sleep and sit there. Commissioner Newbern asked if other options were explored, for
example full view? Mr. Jerrard stated that they have not explored those options.
Commissioner Walls asked what was driving the sunburst design. Mr. Jerrard stated
that it gave the entrance some flair. Commissioner Walls continued to ask the spacing
of the bars. Mr. Jerrard answered that it is five inches. Commissioner Walls wondered
if the bars could be further apart and still meet code. Commissioner Serebrov stated
that the cross bars will discourage vagrants.
Commissioner Newbern stated that the design does not relate in any way to the door.
Mr. Jerrard stated that he does not know of any door that would relate.
Commissioner Newbern asked if there was an iron fence in front of the site. The
answer was no.
There was no additional public comment made ( Frida Tirado is an owner of the project).
Commissioner Kay Tatum stated that she would like a simpler design.
5
ITEM NO. Two (CONT.): Five
Staff Brian Minyard interjected that the bylaws state that an application can be deferred
to a later agenda and that would give the applicant time to resubmit revised drawings.
Commissioner Walls stated that there was a solution to the problem but this was not it.
The applicant asked the committee to defer his application in order to resubmit revised
drawings.
A motion to defer the application until the November 11, 2005 agenda to revise the
drawings was made by Commissioner Serebrov. Commissioner Walls seconded and
the motion passed with 4 ayes, 0 noes and 1 recusal. Commissioner Peters stated for
the record that he recused because of financial dealings with the applicant.
STAFF UPDATE:
On October 25, 2005, the applicant presented three
alternatives to the enclosure. They are to be referenced as
number 1, 2 and 3 as numbered in the sketches. The cover
letter states that enclosure number 1 is similar to a gate at a
house built in 1929 located in the Heights. The second is a
plain one with no ornamentation. The third on is a take off
on a stained glass window shown in Gustav Stickley's book
Craftsman Homes. The applicant offered the committee
three alternates in an attempt to achieve resolution at the
November meeting. The third option is the owners' first
choice.
All of the options have a horizontal spacing between the
bars that leaves a 6.78 inch opening between the bars. Existing door detail
None of the options truly relate to the front door or transom
in the fact that the door has one large wood panel at the bottom and five vertical lights
above in the top of the door. Over the door is a horizontal rectangular three light
transom. The enclosure could relate to the door if there were a cross members on the
enclosure to match the cross members of the door and transom.
None of the options truly relate to the front door or transom
in the fact that the door has one large wood panel at the bottom and five vertical lights
above in the top of the door. Over the door is a horizontal rectangular three light
transom. The enclosure could relate to the door if there were a cross members on the
enclosure to match the cross members of the door and transom.
6
-7-
NEW
111666 �
1 ELF II N OF PORC9-IF�R�N�& OU FS
sa9�nen�cK nFrcuisns
r
2 EELFa -r � N QF�����LOSURt
3 N N R
The first option does have Craftsman influences with the arrangement of the squares
and rectangles. The lock plate is integral to the design. It has the Craftsman elements
without being too elaborate. The fenestration of the bars could be said to mimic the
upper sashes of the windows.
The second option is a totally functional option with no ornamentation. It does nod to
the vertical panes of the windows, both in the door and transom. This option would
most disappear and be the most transparent of the three.
The third option is a pure Craftsman style. The building has a simpler
design with the detailing of the brackets and windows being the
predominate Craftsman influences on the building. This option may be
too heavy and too ornate for the structure. If the building had the
irregular nine over one sashes as many Craftsman structures do, (as
illustrated on the right) the enclosure could relate to the windows. But
with the more simple six over one, it does not.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option One as the preferred
enclosure because of its more simple, yet Craftsman details.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005
504 East 6t" street. Chairman Newbern advised the applicant that all three members
would need to vote in approval for it to pass. She asked the applicant if they wished to
defer to the next meeting. The applicant decided to have the item heard today.
Brian Minyard made a presentation to' the commission. On October 25, 2005 the
applicant presented three alternatives for the en closure. He made a brief presentation
of the different sketches. The made mention of the three different doors as stated in the
staff update in the staff report.
The first option does have Craftsman influences with the arrangement of the squares
and rectangles. The lock plate is integral to the design. It has the Craftsman elements
without being too elaborate. The fenestration of the bars could be said to mimic the
upper sashes of the windows.
The second option is a totally functional option with no ornamentation. It does nod to
the vertical panes of the windows, both in the door and transom. This option would
most disappear and be the most transparent of the three.
The third option is a pure Craftsman style. The building has a simpler
design with the detailing of the brackets and windows being the
predominate Craftsman influences on the building. This option may be
too heavy and too ornate for the structure. If the building had the
irregular nine over one sashes as many Craftsman structures do, (as
illustrated on the right) the enclosure could relate to the windows. But
with the more simple six over one, it does not.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Option One as the preferred
enclosure because of its more simple, yet Craftsman details.
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION ACTION: October 6, 2005
504 East 6t" street. Chairman Newbern advised the applicant that all three members
would need to vote in approval for it to pass. She asked the applicant if they wished to
defer to the next meeting. The applicant decided to have the item heard today.
Brian Minyard made a presentation to' the commission. On October 25, 2005 the
applicant presented three alternatives for the en closure. He made a brief presentation
of the different sketches. The made mention of the three different doors as stated in the
staff update in the staff report.
7
Mr. Jerrard, representing the applicant, commented on the design challenges of the
door design. He commented on the spacing of the vertical bars of the enclosures and
made mention that the spacing was not dictated by code. He stated that the options
range from plain to ornate.
A question was made by commissioner Job Serebrov of what color the bars were to be.
Mr. Jerrard stated that the other ironwork was black and that a color had not yet been
picked.
Chairman Newbern asked a question of the placement of the enclosure. She touched
on the issue of security and the perceived threat of people camping out in the alcove.
Staff clarified that in the minutes that the enclosure would be located six inches behind
the brick face of the building. He asked of the applicant if that was still correct, the
answer was yes. It is to be located below a beam that is located above. Further
discussion occurred and the commission was satisfied with the placement of the
enclosure.
Chairman Newbern stated that it was appropriate for the commissioners to have a
discussion among themselves to clarify their thoughts on the enclosure. She continued
that the applicant would need to amend their application to just one enclosure.
Debra Weldon, of the city attorney's office, stated that at the last meeting, the
commission gave the applicant the opportunity to substitute another enclosure. The
commission will give the applicant some feedback on the choices, then give the option
to the applicant to amend the applicant to narrow the item to one enclosure only. Then
the commission will vote on that enclosure only. Chairman Newbern stated that the
commission is trying save that applicant from resubmitting, renotifying, etc., and save
time.
Commissioner Kay Tatum asked about a fence that was stated in the minutes. She
asked if the design complimented each other. Chairman Newbern stated that the fences
were not that close to each other. John Jerrard stated that the driveway fence does
have squares on the design and circles in the design also.
Commissioner Serebrov asked for clarification about the vehicular gate and the wood
fence that abuts the Rainwater Flats. It was clarified that the Rainwater Flats has a
wood fence on their west property line and an iron fence along 6th Street. Mr. Jerrard
then sketched the fence design on the board.
Commissioner Serebrov asked about the difference in the locking mechanism size
between the different enclosures. Mr. Jerrard stated that in number 3, it was a matter of
an appropriate standard factory made box. The security of the different boxes is the
same. The owner of the condo would have the key to the enclosure.
8
Chairman Newbern stated that she could appreciate the problem. In her own opinion
and not speaking for the whole commission, it was difficult to design an enclosure with
the varying style of the building. Design number three does not relate to the area and
personally likes it least. She stated that enclosure number one adds more lines in the
transom. Mr. Jerrard stated that the transom part of the enclosure would not be easily
seen from street. She continued that Design number two is the most transparent and is
leaning more towards it. She related that the temple front on the building did not relate
to the boxes on design number one.
Commissioner Tatum spoke concerning staff's recommendation. Commission Serebrov
stated that design number one has the square boxes that do not relate to the other
fences. He was concerned that the fencing would end up with a mish mash of different
fencing. He stated that there should be consistency in the fence. Commissioner
Serebrov stated that he personally was in favor of design number two for the
consistency argument. It did not introduce any new geometric structures.
Commissioner Tatum stated that she too thought that design number two was the most
transparent and did not conflict with the existing fencing.
Chairman Newbern asked of legal counsel if this was an appropriate time to ask the
applicant if they would like to amend their application. Mr. Jerrard stated that they would
like to amend their application to option number two for the security enclosure.
A motion was made by Commissioner Serebrov and seconded by Commissioner Tatum
to approve the enclosure. The motion was passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2
absent.
9
V. New Certificates of Appropriateness:
a. None
VI. Other Matters
The calendar was discussed and Staff made a note that the date on the Revised
calendar should read December 22, 2006 instead of December 220, 2006. A motion
was made by Commission Tatum to approve the calendar as revised and
Commissioner Serebrov seconded. The motion was passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 0
noes and 2 absent.
Staff has worked on the guidelines and will get with Commissioner Walls on which
graphics stay in and which will be removed. The guidelines will be presented to the
commission as soon as possible. Tony Bozynski stated that the Board of Directors was
so busy with the budget in the month of December that taking the guidelines to the
board in January was probably a good thing. Staff commented that there were CLG funs
to print the guidelines. Mr. Bozynski stated that a request has been made to the Finance
Dept for costs related with Historic District Commission.
A retreat was discussed and topics were discussed. Mr. Bozynski stated that a retreat
would be beneficial for the commission. He continued that a work program should be
established. Chairman Newbern brought a file for starting a Preservation Plan with
documents from 1990 to the present. Chairmen Newbern stated that the need for a
preservation plan was stressed at CAMP in October. She continued that by compiling
the existing information, a preservation plan could be made. Chairman Newbern was
interested in having a retreat in early January 2006. An email will be sent as to what
type of retreat would be beneficial, whole verses half day, topic in addition to guidelines,
etc.
A one-page flyer was mentioned to be drafted for distribution to the citizens in the
historic district. Staff mentioned that there were CLG funds to do that mailing, and that
the grant cycle was not calendar years and that the mailing should go out in the first part
of next year. Commissioner Serebrov asked that the rest of the commission approve the
mail -out prior to distribution. Staff mentioned that it would be appropriate that the
guidelines would be done or at the press so that the mailing could mention that that new
guidelines are available. Mr. Minyard continued that the state is pressing cities to put
the guidelines on the web. That is possible when they are available.
A discussion was stated about the separate COA page that was developed last
calendar year. Staff committed to looking into finding one, and starting to use it.
Commissioner Peters mentioned that he would like to see those posted at the site
during construction. Deborah Weldon asked that the signatures be more legible when
signing COA's. Further discussion followed with an "Authorization of Representation"
statement that is now part of the packet that is sent to the applicant. It was clarified that
the application is part of the appendix.
10
A question was brought up about an annual report. Mr. Minyard stated that the Planning
and Development did an annual report that covers all department activities. Mr. Minyard
stated that he wrote the section for the river market Design Review committee that
covers how many meetings were held, how many application were herd, how many
passed, filed, major accomplishments, etc. If it was okay with the committee, the annual
report for the Historic District Commission could be incorporated in the Departments
annual report. Those annual reports go onto the city website.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05.
Attest:
Chair Date
11