HDC_03 02 2023March 2, 2023
Little Rock
H I S T O R I C
D I S T R I C T
C O M M I S S I O N
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
AGENDA
Thursday, March 2, 2023, 4:00 p.m.
Willie Hinton Neighborhood Resource Center, 3805 W. 12th Street
I. Roll Call
Members Present: Chair, Amber Jones
Vice Chair, Christina Aleman
Mark Hinson
Tom Fennell
Members Absent: Jonathan Nunn
Amber Haugen
Scott Green
Staff Present: Hannah Ratzlaff
Sherri Latimer
Walter Malone
Kevin Tarkington
Alice Anderson
Citizens Present: Brandon Lee
Estelle Matthis
Pamela Powell
Missy McSwain
Brian Minyard
Daniel Jimenez
Russ Matson
Ed Sergeant
Arma Hart
Jackie Bauhn
Clifton Smith IV
Patricia Blick
Andrea Lewis
March 2, 2023
Citizens Present (cont.):
Jude Fogleman
Jill Fogleman
Adam Fogleman
Emily Reed
Amy Dase
II.Finding a Quorum
Quorum was present being four (4) in number, with three (3) absent.
Ill. Minutes
1.October 6, 2022 Minutes (citizen amendment request)
Ms. Miles requested her statement addressing Item One, proposed Local
Ordinance District, was neutral. Commissioner Aleman made a motion to
approve the amended minutes. Commissioner Fennell seconded. The
motion passed by a voice vote.
2.December 1, 2022 Minutes
Commissioner Aleman made a motion to approve the minutes. Chair
Jones seconded. The motion passed by voice vote.
3.January 5, 2023 Minutes
Chair Jones made a motion to approve the minutes. Commissioner
Fennell seconded. The motion passed by voice vote.
Chair Jones announced a deviation from the agenda to hear the fifth item, HDC2023-001,
ahead of the National Register Nominations as a deferred item from February's cancelled
meeting. Sherri Latimer, Deputy City Attorney, shared with applicants that, pursuant to
the By-Laws, when there are five or fewer Commissioners in attendance, the approval of
an application will require four affirmative votes, and the applicant has the right to defer
the item to the next meeting. Chair Jones asked the applicant, Brandon Lee, if he would
like to defer the item and public hearing to the next regular meeting. Mr. Lee said he would
like the application to be heard at this meeting and not deferred.
2
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001
NAME: Rear & Side Yard Privacy Fence
LOCATION: 609 S Rock Street, The Butler House
OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Brandon Lee
609 S Rock Street,
Little Rock, AR, 72202
Figure I. 609 S Rock, Little Rock, AR
3
March 2, 2023
DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001
AREA: 0.32 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 WARD: 1
HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District
HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing
CURRENT ZONING: UU -Urban Use
A. BACKGROUND
Location
The subject property is located at 609 S Rock Street. The property's legal
description is "Lots 3 and 4, Block 151 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
Context
The subject property has a single
family, one-story Queen Anne
home, built c. 1888, that is
Contributing to the Macarthur
Park Historic District. The most
recent National Register survey
form, 2007, PU2978, describes
the structure: "one story Queen
Anne style house exhibits many
typical details of this style
including textured gable, cutaway
bay window with decorative
woodwork, turned wood porch
supports and decorative spindle
work frieze panel below front
gable."
Sometime before 1992, the attic
was adapted to second story
living space. The historic home
sits on the northern half of a
double lot and has a large side
yard.
The large side yard was once the site of a frame, one-story duplex
that existed in the district pre-1913 and was demolished sometime before 1939,
Figure 2. 609 S Rock location in MacArthur Park Historic District.
4
March 2, 2023
DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001
according to the Sanborn maps. The two lots were consolidated sometime before
1992.
Recent/Previous Action
In 2015, a COC was issued to Sarah
Oliver (aka Sara Braswell) for attic
vents.
On June 12, 2006, a COA was issued to
Dr. Thomas and Sara Braswell to
construct a double bay garage, covered
walkway, new rear screened porch, new
sidewalk, and new fencing along the
north property line.
On April 10 1998, a COC was issued to
Jean Anne Phillips for a 6 foot privacy
fence along the rear property line
abutting the alley.
On January 4, 1996 a COA was issued
to Jean Anne Phillips for the restoration
of the home as a private residence. '"' .___------------ ......
On May 11, 1995 the structure was Figure 3. Properties surrounding 609 Rock Street.
denied a COA for demolition.
On March 27, 1992 the structure was deemed unsafe by Housing and
Neighborhood Programs Department (then Department of Neighborhoods and
Planning).
No other actions were found.
B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
The application request to construct a rear and side yard six-foot, wood privacy
fence and two new gates. One double gate on the rear of the property and one
single gate along the fence facing the street.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The property currently has a six-foot wood board privacy fence along the east
(rear) and south (side) property lines and the back section of the north property
line. A 36-48-inch wood picket fence exists parallel to the front property line,
5
March 2, 2023
DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001
setback to the southeast corner of the house. See Attachment A-site photos and
Figures 2 and 10-fence site plan. Fences to be removed are shown in red. There
also exists a small section of 4-foot-tall wood fencing between the northwest corner
of the house and the north property line.
Figure 4. Side yard of 609 Rock showing existing fencing.
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood
associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were
notified of the public hearing.
6
March 2, 2023
DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001
E. ANALYSIS:
The proposed fence is a six-foot privacy fence made of wood boards, trim, and
posts that mimic the existing. It will be stained a natural wood color. The rear fence
will be set back 8 feet from the rear property line and will begin at the south
elevation of the detached garage and run 58 feet to the south property line. It will
then run along the south property line 83 feet. From there it will run 56 feet across
the side yard to the south elevation of the house. This section of the fence that will
face the street is setback halfway between the front and back walls of the main
structure and sits more than 45 feet back from the front property line.
Two gates are proposed. One double gate on the rear of the property and one
single gate along the fence facing the street.
Figure 5. Proposed fencing site plan.
7
March 2, 2023
DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001
There are no historic fences on the subject property_ There is a section of a
wrought iron historic fence on the adjacent property within the front yard setback.
The proposed privacy fence will not physically impact or visually impede views of
the adjacent historic fence, nor the adjacent historic structure, a Craftsman
apartment built c. 1937.
Figure 6. Wrought iron fence section al 619 Rock Streel.
Section VII. A. 3. Fences and Retaining Walls of the Design Guidelines state:
"Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building."
(pg. 58)
"Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage
may be 72" tall. The privacy fence should be setback from the front fa<;ade of the
structure at least hatfway between the front and back walls of the main structure."
"Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not
stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure."
Staff believes the proposed fence meets the Design Guidelines.
8
March 2, 2023
DEFERRED ITEM NO. ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-001
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval, with the following conditions:
1.Obtain a fence permit.
2.Project to be completed within 365 days of obtaining permit.
3.Gates will be a maximum height of 72 inches.
G. COMMISSION ACTION February 2. 2023
The Little Rock Historic District Commission February 2, 2023 meeting was
cancelled and this item was deferred due to inclement weather.
F. COMMISSION ACTION March 2 2023
Ratzlaff, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Chair Jones invited
Brandon Lee, applicant, to make a presentation. Mr. Lee said staff had covered
the application request and he didn't have anything to add.
Chair Jones opened Commission discussion and said that the application
appeared by the book to the Guidelines. Commissioner Fennell made a motion to
approve the application with staff recommendations. Commissioner Hinson
seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3
absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green).
9
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002
NAME: University Park Historic District
LOCATION: Roughly bounded by Arthur Drive, West 12th Street, and South Hughes
Street
OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Ralph Wilcox
Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
1101 North Street,
Little Rock, AR
Consultant: Amy E. Dase, Senior Historian
Stantec
8401 Shoal Creek Boulevard, Suite 100
Austin, TX
Figure 7. University Park Historic District aerial view with boundary shown.
10
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002
AREA: approximately 54 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 150
HISTORIC DISTRICT: Nominated as "University Park Historic District"
HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing
WARD: 6
CURRENT ZONING: Various: R2 -Single-Family, R4 -Two-Family, and R5 Urban
Residence
A.BACKGROUND
Location
The subject property is
Roughly bounded by
Arthur Drive, West 12th
Street, and South Hughes
Street.
Figure 8. University Park local ion in relation to surrounding historic districts.
11
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002
Context
The nomination of the University Park Historic District is a project funded by the
African American Civil Rights Grant Program awarded to the City of Little Rock in
2020, administered by the National Parks Service.
B .PROPOSAUREQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
The application request to nominate the University Park Historic District to the
National Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A. Areas
of significance are Community Planning and Development and Black Ethnic
Heritage. Period of significance is 1967-1976.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
See photos in Nomination (Attachment A).
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application.
All neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround
the site were notified of the public hearing.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Nomination states:
"The University Park Historic District in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, is
locally significant under Criterion A in the areas of Community Planning and
Development and Black Ethnic Heritage, with a period of significance from 1967
to 1976. The start date marks platting and construction of this residential
subdivision's street and infrastructure systems, which were funded, planned, and
improved as part of a federal urban renewal project. The Little Rock Housing
Authority administered subsequent land sales, and private residential development
began in 1967 with more than 146 single-and multiple-family dwellings
constructed in the neighborhood. Private contractors built one or more housed
designed in the Ranch, Contemporary, and Nee-Period Revival Styles. University
Park was a desirable neighborhood where most residents were Black families,
many with prominent leadership roles in education, commerce, politics, and civil
rights. The district represents and unusually successful and unexpectedly
antithetical example of an urban renewal project where owner-occupants
sustained a Black presence in western Little Rock with a collection of single-family
dwellings that retains its physical and historical integrity."
12
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has set forth the "Arkansas Certified
Local Government Procedures." In Section V of this agreement, "Certified Local
Governments Participation in the National Register Nomination Process," Little
Rock Historic District Commission's role is identified:
"B. CLG involvement in the National Register process
1. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the
AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the
eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using
National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility of
the property.
2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the CLG,
the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG within 30
calendar days of receipt.
3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property not be
nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for eligibility, the
CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic. Preservation
Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is filed with the
SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must
be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date the property owner
receives notification by certified mail that the property has been determined
ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in
accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA.
4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a
property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission to
the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with
notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including those
of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its
recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local
preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final
decision.
6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a commission,
is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all reports or
comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the nomination.
7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for public
participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All reports
13
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002
submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties shall
include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons
contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If
a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report."
The nomination is already currently scheduled to be heard at the April 5 th State
Review Board meeting.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends nomination of the University Park Historic District to the National
Register of Historic Places for local significance under Criterion A and the
submission of the nomination as written to the State Review Board.
G. COMMISSION ACTION March 2, 2023
Ratzlaff announced that this nomination is the result of a multi-year grant project
funded by the African America Civil Rights Grant Program, administered by the
National Parks Service, Department of the Interior, awarded to the City of Little
Rock in 2020. Ratzlaff stated that her predecessor, Brian Minyard, was the person
who primarily managed. Mr. Minyard wrote the grant application and worked with
the University Park neighborhood and consultant team. Ratzlaff also shared that
the nomination research process was unique in that Stantec, the consultant team,
was able to conduct six oral history interviews with original families and
homeowners of the neighborhood.
Stantec, represented by Emily Reed and Amy Dase, attended the meeting virtually
in order to make a presentation to the Commission about the nomination of the
University Park Historic District.
Amy Dase and Emily Reed presented to the Commission. Commissioner Fennell
said this was a great nomination and with so many notable inhabitants. Fennell
said the neighborhood has always been strong since development. Chair Jones
said it was exciting to see this nomination forward. Jones invited public comment.
Mrs. Pamela Powell, University Park resident and University Park Neighborhood
Association President, spoke to the Commission. Mrs. Powell said she wanted to
thank all of the people who helped with this nomination initiative, specially Walter
Malone, City Planning Manager, for getting the project started, Brian Minyard for
all of his work the first years of the project, and Hannah Ratzlaff for finishing the
project. She also thanked Emily Reed, Amy Dase, and others on the Stantec team.
She thanked the neighborhood association's historic committee, including Arma
Hart. Mrs. Powell said the biggest struggle throughout the project was choosing
residents to interview and coordinating the interviews during the pandemic. She
read a list of residents on the initial list to interview, mentioned by family name:
14
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: NR2023-002
Walker, Anderson, Mays, McHenry, Burns, Norman, Porter, Brown, Ausbie,
Smiths, Brookes, Jones, Ziegler, Reynolds, Johnsons, and Grants. Mrs. Powell
extended her thanks again to those who had interviewed informally and formally
for the nomination research. She said she moved to the neighborhood in 1979 and
is still considered a newcomer among so many founding families still present and
active in the neighborhood. Emily Reed thanked Mrs. Powell and said it could not
have been done without her.
Commissioner Fennell made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination
of the University Park Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places.
Commissioner Hinson seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of
4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green).
Ratzlaff said the recommendation of approval would be provided to the Arkansas
Historic Preservation Program to be included as a supporting document for the
State Review Board this April. If approved at the state level, the nomination would
see final review by the National Parks Service and could be officially nominated
this summer.
15
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001
NAME: Railroad Call Historic District Boundary Increase
LOCATION: 104 South Pulaski and 1302 and 1304 West 2 nd Street
OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Ralph Wilcox
Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
1101 North Street,
Little Rock, AR
Figure 9. Railroad Call Historic District Boundary Increase image. Existing boundary shown in blue. Proposed increase
hnundarv shnwn in red.
16
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001
AREA: 0.61 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 5
WARD: 1
HISTORIC DISTRICT: Nominated as "Railroad Call Historic District Boundary Increase"
HISTORIC STATUS: Previously "undetermined"
CURRENT ZONING: Capitol Zoning -Capitol Area Residential
A. BACKGROUND
Location
The subject properties are located at 104 South Pulaski, 1302 W 2 nd Street, and
1304 W 2nd Street.
Figure IO. Location of !he Railroad Call Historic District in relation to surrounding hisloric districls.
17
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001
Context
The Railroad Call Historic District was nominated to the National Register of
Historic Places in 1997 and only included the three structures at 108 S Pulaski,
112 S Pulaski, and 114 S Pulaski.
B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
The application request to nominate the boundary increase of the Railroad Call
Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance
under Criterion C. Areas of significance are Architecture. Period of significance is
1906.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
See photos in Nomination (Attachment A).
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application.
All neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround
the site were notified of the public hearing.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Nomination states:
"The Railroad Call Historic District Boundary Increase is being nominated under
Criterion C with local significance for its examples of Folk-Victorian cottages that
were built to house railroad workers in the vicinity of the Missouri Pacific Depot in
Little Rock. The Railroad Call Historic District is located one block to the east of
Little Rock's Union State (NR listed June 17, 1977), and was a popular and
convenient neighborhood for railroad workers to live in. Sanborn Fire Insurance
Maps for Block 335, where the district is located, illustrate that the houses on the
east and south sides of the block were very similar in their design, and the Folk
Victorian design of the houses clearly depict the same history and significance as
the properties in the original district."
18
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: TWO
l i + : I I ·--- --J@: : .
6
W:. MARKHAM
•
19
L
FILE NO.: NR2023-001
Fi ure I 2. Section of Sheet JO,
Sa born Fire Insurance Company
i\,/r,p, 19 I 3.
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has set forth the "Arkansas Certified Local
Government Procedures." In Section V of this agreement, "Certified Local Governments
Participation in the National Register Nomination Process," Little Rock Historic District
Commission's role is identified:
"B. CLG involvement in the National Register process
1. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the
AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding
the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s)
using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the
eligibility of the property.
2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the
CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG
within 30 calendar days of receipt.
3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property
not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for
eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State
Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless
an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures
outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30
calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified
mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both
the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section
101[c) 2 of the NHPA.
4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a
property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for
submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in
accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including
those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make
its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local
preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs
final decision.
6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a
commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing,
all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the
nomination.
20
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001
7.The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for
public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All
reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of
properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list
of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that
were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be
included in the report."
The nomination is already currently scheduled to be heard at the April 5 th State
Review Board meeting.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends nomination of the boundary increase of the Railroad Call
Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance
under Criterion C and the submission of the nomination as written to the State
Review Board.
G. COMMISSION ACTION March 2, 2023
Ratzlaff made a presentation to the Commission. Chair Jones asked if there was
an applicant present to make a presentation for the nomination. There was none.
Jones asked what initiated the AHPP National Register team to expand the district.
Ratzlaff shared that the expansion is primarily the result of Alex Crawford, an intern
at the AHPP at the time, and his research of the structures surrounding the district.
Ratzlaff said she believes the community project became the subject of his thesis
for his B.A. in History. The original district only included three homes on the block
because they were all owned by the same property owner and the original
nomination was initiated by that property owner. Jones said she believed John
Jarrard owned the homes at that time and put together the nomination.
Commissioner Fennell agreed. Fennell said he first took interest in the small district
as a little pocket within the area when he was a member of the Capitol Zoning
District Commission ("CZDC"). He said that part of the mission of the CZDC is to
preserve existing historic resources around the Capitol and the Governor's
Mansion and he imagined the AHPP-the state agency that houses CZDC-is
supportive of the expansion. He said expanding the district is in step with the CZDC
mission, especially this block of resources. He said he is happy to see more
structures being recognized and that the nomination will support the rehabilitation
and maintenance of the resources [in reference to tax credit eligibility]. He said
there are only little pockets of historic districts in this neighborhood and critical
mass is important in preventing future deterioration and loss of historic resources
near the Arkansas State Capitol. Fennell said this was a great nomination and
he'd like to see it replicated.
21
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: NR2023-001
Jones made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination of the expansion
of the Railroad Call Historic District to the National Register of Historic Places.
Commissioner Fennell seconded. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of
4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green).
22
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003
NAME: William Laporte Building
LOCATION: 1924 Commerce Street
OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Ralph Wilcox
Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
1101 North Street,
Little Rock, AR
Adam Fogleman
Common Ground Opportunity Fund LLC
620 E 161h Street,
Little Rock, AR
Figure 13. William Laporte Building at 1924 Commerce.
23
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003
AREA: 0.06 acres NUMBER OF LOTS : 1 WARD: 1
HISTORIC DISTRICT: Nominated as "William Laporte Building"
HISTORIC STATUS: Eligible
CURRENT ZONING: R4 -Two-Family
A. BACKGROUND
Location
The subject property is located at 1924 Commerce Street. The property's legal
description is "Lot 2 of Block 402, Lincoln and Zimmerman Addition, City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, AR."
Figure 14. Location of the William Laporte Building in relation to surrounding historic districts.
24
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003
Context
In 2009, the structure was surveyed for historic significance and found that it was
eligible for listing to the National Register.
In 2014, the structure was on the Board of Directors agenda for demolition for
October. It was removed from the agenda in consideration of potential historical
significance. Following work done by the owner to secure the structure and make
necessary stabilizing repairs, it was removed from the UV list.
B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
The application request to nominate the William Laporte Building at 1924
Commerce Street to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance
under Criterion A and Criterion C. Areas of significance are Architecture, Ethnic
Heritage/Black, and Commerce. Period of significance is 1899-1973.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The structure is currently vacant. See photos in Nomination (Attachment A).
D.NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application.
All neighborhood associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround
the site were notified of the public hearing.
E. ANALYSIS:
The Nomination states:
'The building at 1924 Commerce, constructed in c. 1899/1900, is significant as an
example of a late-nineteenth century/early-twentieth-century commercial structure
with Italianate detailing. It is particularly noteworthy for its builder, William Laporte,
who was a successful African American plasterer and bricklayer that returned to
Arkansas in 1870 after having escaped slavery at the age of twelve. Laporte's
endeavors were not limited to the construction industry, as he also served on the
Board of Little Rock's first black-owned bank, Capital City Savings Bank, and as
an alternate delegate from Arkansas to the Republican National Convention in
1884, 1888 and 1892. In 1872, he was elected as the Secretary of the Greeley and
Brown Club formed in the City's Second Ward. In 1887, he unsuccessfully ran for
a seat on the Little Rock City Council, Ward 3. As a significant and rare building
built by an African American bricklayer, and as an unusually elaborate commercial
building for its area of Little Rock, the Laporte Building is being nominated to the
National Register of Historic Places with local significance under Criterion C.
25
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003
The Laporte Building is also being nominated with local significance under
Criterion A for its importance in the commercial history of its neighborhood in Little
Rock. When it was built, it was meant to be operated as a grocery store, and it's a
use that the building had well into the twentieth century. The grocery operation in
the building was consistent with the type of grocery iocated in neighborhoods
across Little Rock and the United States, prior to the advent of consumer selection
of groceries, such as in chain stores like Piggly Wiggly and Safeway. The building
remained in use as a grocery store until the late 1950s and continued to be used
for commercial purposes into the 1970s."
Figure I 5. Section of Sheet 213, Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Map for Little Rock, 19 I 3.
26
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NFR2023-003
Figure 16. "Building on Commerce Street in Little Rock, 1982", courtesy of UA Little Rock
Center/or Arkansas History and Culture.
Figure 17. "Wealthy, ·egro Died Friday." Arkansas Democrat, 17 May 1913, pg. 1. -
taken from nomination footnote.
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Program has set forth the "Arkansas Certified Local
Government Procedures." In Section V of this agreement, "Certified Local Governments
Participation in the National Register Nomination Process," Little Rock Historic District
Commission's role is identified:
"8. CLG involvement in the National Register process
1.Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the
AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding
the eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s)
using National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the
eligibility of the property.
27
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003
2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the
CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG
within 30 calendar days of receipt.
3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property
not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for
eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State
Historic. Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless
an appeal is filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures
outlined in 36 CFR 60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30
calendar days of the date the property owner receives notification by certified
mail that the property has been determined ineligible for nomination by both
the CLG and the Chief elected official. This is in accordance with Section
101[c) 2 of the NHPA.
4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a
property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for
submission to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in
accordance with notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including
those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make
its recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local
preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs
final decision.
6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a
commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing,
all reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the
nomination.
7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for
public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All
reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of
properties shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list
of all persons contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that
were received. If a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be
included in the report."
The nomination is already currently scheduled to be heard at the April 5 th State
Review Board meeting.
28
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003
F.STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends nomination of the William Laporte Building at 1924 Commerce
Street to the National Register of Historic Places for local significance under
Criterion A and Criterion C and the submission of the nomination as written to the
State Review Board.
G. COMMISSION ACTION March 2, 2023
Ratzlaff made a presentation to the Commission. Chair Jones asked if there was
an applicant present to make a presentation for the nomination.
Mr. Adam Fogleman, property owner and author of the nomination, spoke to the
Commission. Mr. Fogleman said the William Laporte Building and the nomination
has been a labor of love. He said he has been a resident of the Pettaway
neighborhood for a decade and had walked by this building many times admiring
it and was happy to be involved now in its rehabilitation. He said the purchase of
the surrounding lots and development of the 21 st Street commercial district hinged
on this property and its history and character.
Jones said it's amazing that the structure has so much of its original architectural
details. She remembers in 2014 and before driving by this building just to make
sure it was still there since there were often demolition concerns. She said she
appreciates and applauds the partnership of owners for their dedication and efforts
to keep this resource here, and Mr. Fogelman's passion in uncovering the fuller
narrative of Laporte's life. She said the structure's history is so significant and felt
like no one would notice if the building was gone because it has not received the
recognition it deserves. Mr. Fogleman said he became so interested in the
research of the structure that he identified almost the full genealogy of the William
Laporte and his life. Jones said when reading the nomination it was astounding to
see the amount of history still retained and embedded in the building. Mr.
Fogleman shared a moment from Mr. Laporte's life he found incredible: when Mr.
Laporte was travelling back to many of the places he had been in his life, he went
back to St. Louis, and there he ran across the wife of his former slave owner who
had fallen on hard times. Mr. Laporte chose to take care of her and charitably gave
her enough money for her to live comfortably the rest of her life. Mr. Fogleman also
shared that this structure was one of the last remaining structures related to
Laporte in Little Rock.
Jones made a motion to recommend approval of the nomination of the William
Laporte Building to the National Register of Historic Places. Commissioner Fennell
seconded and said the structure is additionally significant in terms of the history of
brick masonry in Little Rock. He said Little Rock was once known for its high quality
brick masons. These masons frequently went to other cities, like St. Louis, for their
work. The Little Rock masons were always respected, and a large number were
29
March 2, 2023
NR ITEM NO.: THREE FILE NO.: NR2023-003
Black masons. He said there is still a very strong Black mason community that
exists in Little Rock. In addition to this unique significance, there are very few
remaining brick neighborhood grocery stores in the city that once served the area.
For these reasons and more, Fennell said, he seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn,
Haugen, and Green).
30
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003
NAME: Addition of Entrance on side of structure
LOCATION: 805 Sherman Street
OWNERMUTHORQEDAGENT
Russell H. Matson
Matson, Inc.
501 McLean St,
Bishop Anthony B. Taylor
Diocese of Little Rock
801 Sherman St,
Little Rock, AR 72202 Little Rock, AR 72202
Figure I 8. Rendering of proposed entrance al the Adoration Chapel al 805 Sherman Street.
31
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003
AR EA: 2.01 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 WARD: 1
HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District
HISTORIC STATUS: Non-Contributing
CURRENT ZONING: R4A -Low Density Residential with a Conditional Use Permit
A. BACKGROUND
Location
The subject property is located at 805 Sherman. The property's legal description
is "South 300 feet of the east 290 feet of Block 3 of Johnson's Addition to the City
of Little Rock, Pulaski County, AR." The church property includes the entire block.
Context
The subject property was built in
2007 as approved by the Historic
District Commission in 2006
(HDC2006-009) to serve as a
new space for a library,
classrooms, offices, labs, etc. The
building is now being repurposed
to house an adoration chapel and
bridal room.
There is no resource survey for
the existing structure built in
2007. The existing structure
replaced a rectory building that
was built c. 1955. The rectory was
demolished in 2006 for the
construction of the new
classroom building. The 2007
classroom building is a two-story
brick structure with precast
concrete details designed to be
differentiated but compatible to
the surrounding historic sites,
primarily St. Edwards Church to
the south and the "Benedictine
Sisters House" to the north (which
serves as church offices).
Figure 19. Location of projec/ at 805 Sherman Street.
32
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003
St. Edward's Church is an Independently Listed structure built by Charles
Thompson c. 1901 in the High Gothic Revival ecclesiastical style. The Benedictine
Sisters House, also referred to as the administrative building, is a Contributing
structure built c. 1930 whose architectural style is eclectic and identified as
Romanesque Revival in the 2007 survey forms.
Recent/Previous Action
In 2020, a COC (HDC2020-021) was issued to St. Edwards Church for structural
repairs.
In 2006, a COA (HDC2006-10) was issued to St. Edwards Church to install a new
sign at the corner of Sherman and 9th Street.
In 2006, a COA (HDC2006-009) was issued to St. Edwards Church for new
construction.
No other relevant actions were found within the past 10 years.
B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
The application requests to create an additional entrance on the southern elevation
of the c. 2007 classroom building. This entrance will provide a separate entrance
to the adoration chapel and bridal room from the forecourt/courtyard between the
church and the chapel.
C.EXISTING CONDITIONS:
See site photos (Attachment A) and site plan (Attachment B).
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application.
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood
associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were
notified of the public hearing.
E. ANALYSIS:
The proposed new entrance is part of a larger interior renovation project. The new
entrance will be located on the south of the building, on the southern elevation of
33
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003
a single-story section, facing a planned forecourt and the church (Figure 3). This
section of the building projects about 10 feet south from the primary mass.
The proposed project will
create a recessed opening in
place of, and the same width
as, the two existing center
windows shown in Figure 5 in
Attachment A. The entrance
surround will be precast
concrete with chamfer edges
on exposed corners and a
recessed cross at the center of
the lintel. A precast concrete
wall niche will sit in the center
of the back wall of the
recessed opening. The base of
the niche will align with the
existing window sills on either
side of the recessed entrance.
The primary exterior masonry
will be new brick and mortar to
match the existing. A door will
be installed on the interior of
either side of the recessed Figure 20. I. Edwards Church property wi1h buildingf ootprinls and National
Register s1ar11 · shown. Impacted e/evarion shown in red dashed outline.entrance. One door, to the
bridal room, will not be visible
from the public right of way. The second door, to the chapel, will be minimally
visible. Both doors will swing out towards the niche and will be solid wood with thin
vertical boards and no glass. The doors appear similar in design to the primary
church entrance doors, however drastically simplified. A sloped awning/canopy will
be installed above the entrance to match the other existing entrance awnings on
the building. The awning will be supported by wood brackets that match the
existing.
A Phase 2 plan is shown in the submitted drawings to add a gable roof over the
new entrance but is not being pursued as part of this application.
In consideration of how this project is reviewed by the MacArthur Park Design
Guidelines, staff believes the application is best examined by the design guidelines
for new construction (Section V) and the rehabilitation guidelines for
doors/entrances (Section Ill).
34
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003
Section V. 1. h. "Commercial and Mixed Use Infill Guidelines: Wall Area" of the
MacArthur Park Design Guidelines state:
"Wall area means the vertical architectural member used to define and divide
space including the kind and texture and exposure of wall sidings and trims, and
the location, number and design of all window and door openings. Wall area refers
to the proportion, rhythm, and scale of walls, their associated openings and their
relationship to buildings within the area of influence."
"In general, it is appropriate to: orient window and door openings vertically and
symmetrically within a given wall area."
The new construction guidelines are used here to assess what impacts the
proposed alterations have on the 2007 previously approved new construction and
whether these impacts would result in a structure that would still meet the
guidelines.
Section Ill. B. 1. "Doors: Screen; Storm and Security Doors" of the MacArthur Park
Design Guidelines state:
"If doors are added to an inconspicuous secondary or rear wall, they should be
similar to the original doors considering solid to void ratio."
Based on the relevant guidelines, staff believes the proposed entrance supports
the compatibility of the building within the district and the church site and does not
deviate from the overall character of the previously approved building. The
proposed entrance is consistent with the proportion and rhythm of the wall areas
of the structure; has minimally visible impact from the public right-of-way; and is
compatible with the architectural details of the structure.
Staff believes the solid wood doors to the bridal room and chapel are appropriate
for the intimacy and function of the interior spaces and are inconspicuous from the
public right-of-way. In this case, the doors do not need to be similar in solid to void
ratio with the primary entrances doors of the building.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtain a building permit.
2. Project to be completed within 365 days of obtaining permit.
35
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: ONE FILE NO.: HDC2023-003
G.COMMISSION ACTION March 2 2023
Staff made a presentation to the Commission.
Sherri Latimer, Deputy City Attorney, shared with applicants that, pursuant to the
By-Laws, when there are five or fewer Commissioners in attendance, the approval
of an application will require four affirmative votes, and the applicant has the right
to defer the item to the next meeting. Chair Jones asked the applicant if they would
like to defer the item and public hearing to the next regular meeting. Mr. Ed
Sergeant said he would like the application to be heard at this meeting and not
deferred.
Chair Jones invited the applicant to make a presentation. Mr. Ed Sergeant, project
architect, spoke to the Commission. He said this project was primarily an adaptive
reuse of the classroom space within the 2007 building. He provided a summary of
the future chapel and bridal room. Chair Jones said the application seems to be
straightforward and asked if the Commission had any questions for the applicant.
Hearing no questions, Jones opened comment to supporters or objectors. There
were no comments regarding the application.
Jones made a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Aleman seconded and said that the proposed entrance was well
placed and had a minimal and positive impact. The motion passed unanimously
with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green).
36
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
NAME: Replacement of Entry Doors
LOCATION: 623 Sherman Street (including 615-619 Sherman & 608-612 E 7th St.)
OWNER/AUTHORIZED AGENT:
Daniel Jimenez
Little Rock Turnkey Properties
Memphis, TN 38119
Jamie Hoffman
315 Crystal Ct,
Little Rock, AR 72205
Figure 21. Elsmcourt Apartments, 623 Sherman St, Lillie Rock, AR
37
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
AREA: 0.52 acres NUMBER OF LOTS: 1 WARD: 1
HISTORIC DISTRICT: MacArthur Park Historic District
HISTORIC STATUS: Contributing
CURRENT ZONING: R4A-Low Density Residential
A BACKGROUND
Location
The subject property is located at 623 Sherman. The property's legal description
is "Lots 4,5, and 6 of Block 2, Stevensons Addition, City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, AR."
Context
The subject property is the site of three two-story multi-family apartment buildings,
built c. 1950. As a corner lot, two
units face Sherman and one unit
faces East 7th Street. A covered
parking shelter sits at the rear of
the site along the west property
line barely visible from the street.
The apartment units were
surveyed as separate historic
resources by street. The buildings
at 623 Sherman and 615-618
Sherman are PU2818 and the
building at 608-612 E 7th Street is
PU2819.
The structures are described
similarly in the most recent
National Register survey forms,
2007, PU2818: "standard
twentieth century apartment
building with brick veneer, steel
windows and new hip-roofed
porches. Some aspects of
Colonial Revival style are
apparent."
The site was constructed sometime around 1950. The property is shown as vacant
on the 1939 and 1950 Sanborn maps. In a 2004 staff report, staff notes that the
38
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
apartments "were built by the current owner's father and have remained in the
family since 1949."
Figure 22.1960's aerial of site.
Recent/Previous Action
In 2004, a COA (HDC2004-004) was issued to Jim Barre to install new hip roofs
made of copper standing seam on the main entrances facing Sherman and 7th
Street.
No other actions were found.
B. PROPOSAL/REQUEST/APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
The application request to replace all front doors facing Sherman and 7 th Street.
C. EXISTING CONDITIONS:
Existing doors are interior rated doors composed of particle board. Doors are
deteriorating due to their lack of durability and exposure to exterior elements. Each
entrance leads to four interior units through a central staircase: two downstairs and
two upstairs.
See site photos (Attachment A) and site plan (Figure 14).
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS:
The time of distribution, there were no comments regarding this application.
39
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
All owners of properties located within 200 feet of the site and all neighborhood
associations registered with the City of Little Rock that surround the site were
notified of the public hearing.
E.ANALYSIS:
The proposed replacement door for each entra nee is a fiberglass exterior rated
door, smooth finish, with five small rectangular lites offset to the left. The glass
appears to be textured in a scrolled profile frame. The product is manufactured by
Therma-Tru Doors and is from their "Pulse" series of Mid-Century inspired doors.
The applicant intends to paint the doors to match the final trim color, Sherwin
Williams Urbane Bronze.
Each entrance is flanked by wood sidelite panels original to the structure. The
applicant plans to repair sidelites without alterations. Sidelites will be painted the
same color as the trim.
The replacement of entry doors is a project within a larger rehabilitation scope of
work for the property. The full rehabilitation of the interior and exterior of the
property is utilizing state Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits and has a received an
approved Part 2 (Attachment B) and verification from Tom Marr, Federal Programs
and Tax Credits Manager at the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, that the
doors are appropriate for the tax credit program (Attachment C).
Section Ill. B. 1. "Doors: Screen; Storm and Security Doors" of the MacArthur Park
Design Guidelines state:
"Original doors and/or their entranceway surrounds, sidelights, transoms, and
detailing should not be removed or changed. Replacement of missing original
doors should be like or very similar to the original in style, materials, glazing (glass
area), and lights (glass pane configuration.)"
Section Ill. "Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation" of the MacArthur Park Design
Guidelines state:
"Replacement of missing features should have historic documentation; if not
available, interpretations of similar elements in the area may be considered." (pg.
9).
40
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
The earliest pictorial evidence of the front doors are photographs from the Quapaw
Quarter Association ("QQA") 1977 Architectural-Historic Inventory Cards (Figure 3
& Figure 4).
Figure 23. Front facade of 623 Sherman, 1977, QQA. Figure 4. Front and south side facades o/615 Sherman, 1977, QQA .
Figure 5. Front facade of 623 Sherman, 1988, QQA. Figure 6. Front facade of615 Sherman, 2007, AHPP survey form.
The doors shown in these 1977 early photographs appear to be wood doors with
three center panels and no glass. Photographs from the 1988 QQA survey show
that at some point these doors were replaced with plain doors with no decorative
features. Photographs from the 2007 AHPP survey forms show the same, or
similar, plain doors. In 2004, hipped metal roofs were installed on the front porches.
Apart from the doors and the porch roofs, very few alterations have occurred.
41
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
Considering the evidence shown in the 1977 photos, staff finds that the request for
front door replacements is partially consistent with the Design Guidelines and
Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The existing doors are interior
rated and not original to the site and require replacement due to their lack of
durability to exterior elements. The proposed replacement doors are not
characteristic of the original doors in style, material, glazing, and lights.
Figure 7. Proposed doors, Therma-Tru Echo style fiberglass.
photo submitted by applicant.
Figure 8. Proposed door held in front of entry opening, photos submitted by applicant.
The proposed doors attempt compatibility with the
architectural style of the apartment buildings
through the wider mid-century style. However, the
site's architectural features display symmetry, often
found in revival styles of the era. Symmetry is
evident in the steel window configuration and
locations, central bay porches, entry sidelights,
brick courses bordering the window above the porches, and hip roofs. The
proposed doors would be the only asymmetrical feature on the building facades.
A more compatible replacement option would be a door more similar in design to
the one pictured in the 1977 photographs, or a replacement option that supports
the architectural symmetry and revival style of the site.
42
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
Figure 9 and Figure 10 are examples of doors from Therma-Tru that either
resemble the original doors or would be more compatible with the architectural
style of the building. Staff finds that the proposed replacement doors are partially
consistent with the guidelines and are a positive replacement in comparison to the
existing interior rated doors. In light of the pictorial evidence provided in the 1977
photographs, staff would be more supportive of a replacement design that is more
compatible with the architectural style of the site and similar elements of
surrounding properties (see site photos in Attachment A).
Figure 9. Therma-Tru Classic
Craft Visionary Collection, 3
panel shaker.
Figure 10. Therma-Tru Classic
Craft Artissa Collection, lite 2
panel.
F. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the proposed replacement doors, with the following
conditions:
1. Obtain a building permit.
2. Project to be completed within 365 days of obtaining permit.
3. Replacement doors will fit the original opening.
4. Installation of replacement doors will avoid damage to surrounding
architectural features and elements.
43
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
G. COMMISSION ACTION March 2 2023
Staff made a presentation to the Commission.
Sherri Latimer, Deputy City Attorney, shared with applicants that, pursuant to the
By-Laws, when there are five or fewer Commissioners in attendance, the approval
of an application will require four affirmative votes, and the applicant has the right
to defer the item to the next meeting. Chair Jones asked the applicant if he would
like to defer the item and public hearing to the next regular meeting. Mr. Daniel
Jimenez said he would like the application to be heard at this meeting and not
deferred. Chair Jones invited the applicant to make a presentation.
Mr. Jimenez, authorized agent, spoke to the Commission. He shared with the
Commission that when the applicants bought the property the condition of the
interior had been fairly neglected and the renovation and improvements to the
twenty apartment units is primarily focused on the interior. He said for this reason,
a lot of the funding for the project is being dedicated to the interior. The applicants
had found that the previous owner left five new exterior doors in the storage unit
of the apartments. Mr. Jimenez said the found replacement doors would save them
$4,000-$5,000 on the total project cost versus buying all new replacement doors.
He said for this reason, the owners would likely want to use these doors if possible
rather than buy new ones. He said he would like to try and see if the owners would
be agreeable to using one of the staff recommended doors instead. Mr. Jimenez
said they should have no problems meeting the other expectations in the staff
recommendation.
Mr. Jimenez shared that all other exterior work was focused on in-kind repairs to
the brick masonry and aluminum windows. He confirmed they are using the state
tax credit program for this project.
Chair Jones said she did not think the proposed exterior doors submitted by the
applicant were the most compatible doors for the specific architecture of the site,
but she understood the desire to utilize the doors to make the rehabilitation more
financially feasible. She said they were not too far from the wider architectural style
of the site. She said she was okay with the proposed doors and appreciated that
Mr. Jimenez would check with the owners to see if they would be agreeable to
staff's recommendation of more compatible doors.
Mr. Jimenez said he understood staff's recommendation and agreed with it, but
also thought that the applicant's proposed doors would still be a significant
improvement to the site.
Commissioner Aleman said she is familiar with the property and the amount of
work it likely requires, and that she appreciates the explanation of why the
applicant wants to utilize the asymmetrical doors. She said the context helps her
44
March 2, 2023
ITEM NO.: TWO FILE NO.: HDC2023-004
balance some of the comments in the staff report. Commissioner Hinson agreed
and said it makes sense for the applicant to utilize the inherited doors in this case.
Chair Jones added that it is helpful to know that the state tax credit program has
approved the doors and believes they are compatible enough.
Jones made a motion to approve the application as recommended by staff.
Commissioner Aleman seconded. Ratzlaff asked for clarification on whether the
motion included approval of both door options. Commissioner Fennell said he
wanted to amend the motion to add that the authorized agent be able to talk with
the owners and that the owners (1) provide a written denial of the staff
recommended doors and (2) state that they want to use the door they currently
have. Mr. Fennell said he recommends the three paneled shaker door which he
believes is the most compatible. Jones asked if staff had talked to Tom Marr, the
state tax credit coordinator, and if he would approve the other doors if they were
chosen. Ratzlaff said she had confirmed with Mr. Marr and any of the three
submitted and recommended options would be approved.
Commissioner Aleman seconded the amendment to the motion. Ratzlaff restated
the motion was to approve staff recommendation with the additional approval of
the three -panel shaker door as an option, with the condition that the owner confirm
with staff the denial of the three -panel shaker door if they chose to use the
proposed asymmetrical door instead. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0
noes, and 3 absent (Nunn, Haugen, and Green).
45
March 2, 2023
IV.Other Matters
1.New Logo
Ratzlaff provided an update on the new logo initiative and summarized
past actions from previous meet ings. In November 2022, the commission
considered applying for CLG grant funds for a new logo design.
Commissioner Mark Hinson volunteered himself and his firm to design
the new logo. Hinson is the Vice President of Creative Services with
Mangan Holcomb Partners/Team-SI, a marketing firm and advertising
agency headquartered Little Rock. Staff has worked closely with Hinson
and his team from December 2022 to March 2023. As a result, staff and
Commissioner Hinson presented six logo variations to the Commission.
Ratzlaff shared that it has been a relief to have Commissioner Hinson
involved and is grateful for his team's expertise. Following a concept
focused meeting, Hinson provided staff with 30+ conceptual logos. From
there, the team narrowed the options to five designs and then to one
primary design with six color and detail variations (Figure 24).
Figure 24. Logo Concepts from MHP.
46
March 2, 2023
Commissioner Hinson said the challenge was to develop a logo that
would be reflective and inclusive of Little Rock's twenty-five historic
districts and the existing historic resources across the city. Hinson
explained that the outer border of the logo is inspired by stained glass
and the links that go all the way around the logo are representative of the
different districts that the Commission helps steward. He said the
typeface for "Historic District" is classic and meant to be immediately
recognizable. This is paired with a contemporary and simplified type face
for "Little Rock" and "Commission". There are details of water droplets
within the logo to represent the city's relationship to the Arkansas River.
The inner boarder is different in each logo variation shown. They are on
the spectrum of ornate, geometric, and minimal in design. Hinson said he
and his staff wanted to show the Commission the basic logo in different
details and colors so they could help narrow it down.
Chair Jones said she liked the logo on the bottom right because it was
cleaner and easier to read. Commissioner Aleman agreed. Jones said
she liked the references to the river and the significance of a colorful logo.
Commissioner Aleman jokingly asked if they were going to get branded
merchandise with the new logo, like mugs. Commissioner Hinson said
the shape of the logo, a circle, would lend itself easily to most products
and mediums. He said they went for a shape that would work well with
social media.
Commissioner Aleman said she also pictured the logo in bronze and said
the base design was versatile. She said her favorite variation was the
bottom right logo.
Ratzlaff said she felt Commissioner Hinson and his team hit the nail on
the head with what she was aiming for with a colorful logo that better
represented all of the Commission's duties beyond reviewing Certificates
of Appropriateness, including its grant and nomination efforts. Ratzlaff
said she is very happy with what Hinson's team has accomplished and
she believes the logo is versatile and will translate well to monochrome
and gradient designs where necessary, such as on a plaque or street sign
topper. Ratzlaff asked the Commissioners if they had a preference
between the cool and warm color schemes. The Commissioners present
said they all liked the warm color scheme for its easy identification and
nostalgia. Hinson said he could provide the favored logo design in the
two color options to compare. Ratzlaff suggested that these final options
be presented at the next meeting in hopes of having the full Commission
present. The Commissioners agreed.
Ratzlaff asked Brian Minyard, previous Planning and Development
Department employee and HOC staff, if he would like to weigh in on the
47
March 2, 2023
logo change. Mr. Minyard said he stayed at the meeting following the
University Park nomination review because he wanted to hear about this
item on the agenda. He said the column [the existing logo] was the result
of a mid-1980s contest. At this time, the main historic districts in the city
were Governor's Mansion, MacArthur Park, and Marshall Square, but
now the city has historic districts like Broadmoor, Downs, and, sometime
this summer, University Park. He said ditching the column was good. The
Commission —and the wider preservation field —is getting more mid-
century nominations as the 1970s are becoming eligible for consideration
for historic status. He said the column is not representative of what
historic preservation is today. He said that Little Rock has historic sites
that are different and diverse and not having a heavy column as the
predominant image makes a lot of sense and is a good idea.
Commissioner Hinson said he entered the 1985 logo contest and did not
win. He was happy to have come back to assist in the new logo 35+ years
later. Chair Jones said Hinson had really stuck it out since he built a new
home in the historic district and now he's leading the design of the new
logo.
Commissioner Fennell said the existing logo reminded him of the column
in the previous AIA logo (American Institute of Architects). He said he was
supportive of the reasoning to update the logo because the Commission's
responsibilities, and the shared historic assets of the city, are not just
columns. Mr. Minyard agreed and said the city was more than Victorian,
Colonial, and Craftsman sites. Hinson said that Ratzlaff and his team
made sure to avoid utilizing a single or specific architectural element as
the focal point since it would date the logo and not represent the diverse
historical resources of the city.
2. Hillcrest Resurvey Update
Ratzlaff provided an update on the Hillcrest Resurvey grant project. The
consultant team, JMT, was on schedule and had completed the fieldwork
and submission of ten draft Arkansas Architectural Resource Forms. The
resurvey phase was on track to be completed in July 2023.
3. 23-CLG Grant Award Announcement
Ratzlaff shared that the program was awardba CLG funds for the next
grant _cycle with $147,650 awarded. The grant projects -Will be: the
contf'ruation of the phased resurvey of Hillcrest; funds to staff and
commissioner training, and the development of new design guidelines.
She said the grant for design guidelines was intended for Central High if
the local ordinance district passed at the Board level, but the funds could
also be pivoted to be used for the necessary updates to the MacArthur
48
March 2, 2023
Park guidelines if the LOO was denied instead of losing that part of grant
award.
4. Local Ordinance District Update
Ratzlaff shared that the Board of Directors will hear the proposed to
establish a local ordinance district for the Central High School
Neighborhood Historic District at their March 7th meeting.
5. CAMP Training May 5, 2023
Ratzlaff reminded Commissioners of the upcoming training in Fort Smith
on May 5th hosted by the AHPP.
6. Enforcement Issues
None
7. Certificates of Compliance
HDC2023-002-1402 Commerce-storm windows
HDC2023-005 -623 Rock Street -fascia and crown repairs
HDC2023-006-316 E 11th Street-fence repair
8.Citizen Communication
No citizens chose to speak during this time.
V. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn, and the meeting ended at 5:38pm.
Attest:
Chair Date
Staff Date
49