HDC_03 09 20151
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, March 9, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
Members Present: Toni Johnson
BJ Bowen
Page Wilson
Jennifer Carman
Jeremiah Russell
Members Absent: Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Frank Barksdale
Jimmy Moses
Donna Thomas
Jeremy Larson
Joseph Alley
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner BJ Bowen to approve the minutes of February 9, 2015 as
amended. Mr. Minyard read the changes. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the
minutes were approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 absent.
Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
2
DATE: March 9, 2015
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
ADDRESS: 1600 W 3rd Street
REQUEST: Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1600 W 3rd Street. The property’s legal description is “The
South 84 feet of Lots 11 and 12, Block 5 Deaf Mute Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
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. IV.
Location Esso Standard Oil Service Station at 1600 W 3rd
3
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local
Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in
the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”,
“Process for monitoring Certified local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments
Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified
Local Governments.”
In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C
Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation
commissions shall include:
“Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within
the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a
nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally
evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not
represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that
discipline before rendering its decision.”
In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination
process, sub section B CLG involvement in the National Register Process, the procedures state:
A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP
regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed
for nomination to the National Register.
I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission
and the chief elected official.
2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National
Register criteria.
3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the
jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending
nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation.
B. CLG involvement in the National Register process
I. 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
4
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.
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places.
The nomination states:
The Esso Standard Oil Service Station building, located at 1600 West 3rd Street, Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas, is a former filling and service station. It exhibits
twentieth century commercial style with International characteristics through the use of
smooth external enameled cladding, flat roof, asymmetrical design, and curtain windows.
According to functionalist principals, the building’s shape corresponds with the
structure’s intended use as a filling and/or service station. The one-story structure
reveals a fundamentally rectangular-shaped concrete block form. The Esso Standard Oil
Service Station displays function over form, with only subtle façade decoration and a flat
roofline (with a parapet) typical of service station designs of this time period. Below the
roofline, the exterior wall surfaces are unadorned and consist of white enameled metal
panels. The front exterior wall is interrupted by three garage bay doors, an entry door,
and large floor-to-ceiling windows. A flat, cantilever awning or canopy protrudes
beginning over the entry door and continuing above the large windows of the extruded
aluminum storefront glazing system and wrapping around the east corner of the building.
This canopy of concrete is also concealed with baked enamel.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
5
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion A. Criterion A is defined as: Property is associated with events
that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. The nomination is included at the
end of the staff report. Ralph Wilcox, AHPP, offered to answer questions concerning the
nomination. There were none.
Commissioner BJ Bowen made a motion to support the nomination and Commissioner
Jeremiah Russell seconded. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes and 2 absent.
Front Facade Rear facade
Front Façade from southwest Front Façade from southeast
Page 6 of 25
DATE: March 9, 2015
APPLICANT: Jimmy Moses, Moses Tucker
ADDRESS: 500 block of Rock Street
COA REQUEST: Infill Apartments
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 500 block of Rock
Street. The property’s legal description is “Lot 7-12, Block
40, except the east 65’ of lots 11 and 12 and the west 26’
of the south 10’ of 8, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
The site for the infill building is currently a parking lot to
serve the Elbert’s Legion Post building that faces Capitol
Avenue. The cover letter states that changes are to be
made to the Legion Post building, but no drawings were
supplied for this Commission to review. Therefore, the
Commission will not be reviewing any changes to the
existing building.
This application is for Infill Apartments. The apartment
building will face Rock Street with parking to the west and
behind the building. The building is three stories high
with 36 apartments.
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
Demolished house at 522 Rock Demolished house at 518 Rock Plan from 1978 Survey
Page 7 of 25
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On December 5, 1985, a COA was approved and issued to The American Legion Post No. 1 for
demolition of a house at 522 Rock Street and construction of a parking lot.
On December 4, 1987, a COA was approved and issued to The American Legion Post No. 1 for
an amendment to their parking lot.
Google street view Aerial Photo of site
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
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.
Page 8 of 25
(b) The style, material, size, and
location of outdoor advertising
signs and bill posters within an
historic district shall also be under
the control of the commission.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-
115. – Certificate of appropriateness
required.
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of
appropriateness required.
No building or structure, including
stone walls, fences, light fixtures,
steps and paving or other
appurtenant fixtures shall be
erected, altered, restored, moved,
or demolished within the historic
district created by this division
until after an application for a
certificate of appropriateness as
to the exterior architectural
changes has been submitted to
and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of appropriateness
shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a building permit
or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering structures.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic
aspects of the district.
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.
Location of Proposed Building
Page 9 of 25
(6) Entrance area.
(7) Wall areas.
(8) Detailing.
(9) Facade.
(10) Scale.
(11) Massing.
The definitions for some of these terms are found in the ordinance in Sec. 23-77 Definitions.
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
…related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and 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)
…related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in
the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired.
(Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10)
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.)
Page 10 of 25
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in
keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be
reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction.
The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the
following criteria:
• Architectural style
• General design
• General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the
building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and
other appurtenant fixtures
• Siting
• Height
• Proportion
• Rhythm
• Roof area
• Entrance area
• Wall areas
• Detailing
• Facade
• Scale
• Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
The style of the building is traditional.
GENERAL DESIGN
The building is rectangular in plan with seven uneven bays. The center bay is the primary
entrance from Rock Street with an open air first floor with the second and third floor featuring
large shutters/louvers. The outside bays are the largest, and the center bay is the smallest. The
building is three stories with a gabled roofs running longwise with the building. On the Rock
Street façade, alternating bays are inset from the front façade and feature roof planes that are
setback from the other bays of roof planes for more interest in the roof area. The end bays are
Page 11 of 25
covered in Hardie Board lap siding and are full depth. The bays adjoining the corner bays are
inset and feature brick facades. Only two bays feature brick facades.
The 6th Street façade features what can best be described as two three-story houses connected
by three-story breezeway. The gable portions of the facades are evident on this façade. The
breezeway area has a flat roof. Visible from the street on the first floor is the stairways leading
to the second and third floor.
Rock Street Elevation
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
SIDING/BRICK: The facades of the building will be primarily siding with some inset portions of
the building in brick. The siding will be Hardie Plank lap siding in smooth finish with Hardietrim
trim and fascia boards. The corner trim boards will be 6” Hardie Trim and the horizontal trim
separating the first and second floor will be 12” Hardie Trim Board.
The brick veneer will be a Rosedal Blend, red in color.
WINDOWS: The units will be white vinyl windows by Weather Barr, Cornerstone model. The
mullion pattern will be French Country, which features two panes wide and six panes tall on the
sashes for a larger individual panes size. There will be a mixture of casement windows and
fixed sashes in the building. In the attic area, there will be smaller 4 pane windows. On the
Rock Street façade, the first floor features 10 sets of three ganged windows. On the inset brick
veneered bays, there is a set of double ganged windows, one door and one single window. On
the second floor, there are 20 single windows and 4 sets of double ganged windows. The third
floor is just like the second in window arrangement.
On the 6th street side, the first floor features one set of double ganged windows, three single
windows and one door. The second and third floor features six single windows. The attic level
features four square windows with four panes.
DOORS – Exterior doors will be a 2 panel fiberglass door by Masonite square top BLT-2st. This
is a fiberglass door that can be stained to appear as wood. These doors will be located in the
Page 12 of 25
brick inset areas to access first floor apartments from the street. The doors feature a transom
window above each.
Window section Lower Floor Windows Doors
LIGHTING: The Light sconce beside
front entry doors will be by Restoration
Hardware Braxton Sconce weathered
zinc. The applicant is also requesting
pole mounted lighting by the entry
gates on Rock Street which will be
similar to antique street lamps LTL 30
which match fixtures in the surrounding
area. It is desired that the cobrahead
street lights be replaced with the pole
streetlights as specified, but that
improvement would be in the right-of-
way. This commission does not review
improvements in the right-of-way.
Wall mounted fixture Post mounted fixture
Page 13 of 25
FENCING: Fencing appears in multiple areas on this
site. On Rock Street, it is along the brick inset area of
the building to create small entry courtyards for the
private entry areas, at the main entrance area in the
center of the façade and along the property line to the
north of the building towards the American Legion
building. On the 6th Street side, it starts at the corner of
the building, proceeds along the 6th street property line
to the corner of the convenience store. There is a drive
gate for entry into the parking are and a gate for the
dumpster. The last section of fencing is in the alley
that is being petitioned to be closed. It starts at the
northwest corner of the convenience store, runs across
the alley and then north along the western edge of the
alley to the corner of the paragon building. The fencing is by Ameristar Montage, Classic style,
6’ high and black in color. The vehicle gates are sliding gates.
The fencing around dumpster will be the same fencing, with an added panel of solid steel
painted plate to visually screen the dumpster. The posts are square. The dumpster gate swings
onto the public right of way may be changed at the Planning commission level.
GUTTERS are made of at 24 ga. Kynar painted finish metal.
SATELLITE DISHES: The cover letter states: “Currently TV and ISP sources are unknown, if
any satellite dishes are required, they will be installed on the roof out of sight.” These could be
installed on the inners slopes of the roof below the ridgeline of the roof with minimal visibility
from the street or neighborhood.
MECHANICAL SYSTEMS – The condensers will be placed on racks on top of the roof behind
the roof slopes out of site.
SIGNAGE: The signs will be a single post fixed similar to the one depicted on page 63 of the
Guidelines. Two signs are requested, one sign at the main entrance on Rock Street and
another at the corner of Rock and 6th. The total height of the sign is about 10 feet tall, with an
overall width of 3’-8”. Neither while the guidelines nor does the ordinance have a maximum size
on signage. Staff did a survey for another application and the total height of the sign is in
keeping with other signs surveyed in the general area. The sign itself, at 3’-8” by 4’-2” is three
times the size of existing signage in the area.
Fence
Page 14 of 25
Sign Detail Elevation with Signage
SITING
The building parallels Rock Street on its long axis and sits approximately one foot off of the
property line. The relationship to the property line along Rock Street is similar to the three story
buildings across Rock Street (511 Rock Street and 401 Capitol Avenue). It is closer to the
street than the two smaller scale building to the south along Rock Street (515 and 521 Rock
Street) and closer to the street than the neighboring building to the north at 500 Rock Street.
Along 6th street, the setback is similar to the Convenience store to the west. The store is built
on the property line and apartments are to be built with a six foot setback. The UU zoning
category does not have a setback requirement. See graphic on page 3.
HEIGHT
The proposed height is greater than the other
buildings on the block. The multistory apartment
buildings are three stories with flat roof (401
Capitol) or three story with a lower pitch hipped
roof at 511 Rock. 500 Rock Street is a two story
with a low pitch hip roof that sits on a raised
plateau which adds height to the structure. 511
Rock Street is a single story building and 521 is a
two story building, both with pitched hipped roofs.
However, from the street view, the proposed
building should relate to the two larger apartment
buildings across Rock Street. Across 6th Street,
there is the two story flat roofed apartment
building owned and used by the Repertory Theatre which is a similar rectangular shaped
apartment building. The convenience store is a one story flat roofed structure.
6th Street Elevation (South)
Page 15 of 25
Rock street Elevation (East)
PROPORTION
The proportion of the Rock Street façade is longer than other buildings on the street, more
rectangular and less square. In the general area, there are buildings with this rectangular
shape. The design does add verticality to the façade with the use of the taller thinner windows
that are a throwback to the Italianate structures across the street at 511 and 521 Rock. All
facades have been broken into smaller bays to reduce the mass of the building.
RHYTHM
The rhythm of the inset bays on the Rock Street side try to immolate the individual building on
the other side of the street. The rhythm of the individual windows on the second and third floor
mimic the windows on the Italianate structures across Rock while the ganged lower floor
windows mimic the multi-story apartment windows across Rock Street.
ROOF AREA
The roofing will be architectural shingles by Atlas Stormmaster Slate, which is a faux slate
shingle. The roof are will be broken into 14 separate gabled roofs and joined by the flat roof
above the corridor that runs lengthwise through the building. This breaks the mass of the roof
and blends more with the smaller buildings on Rock Street.
Roof shingles Roof shingle detail
ENTRANCE AREA
The entrance areas on Rock and 6th Streets are voids in the building that will apparently be
primarily open air. The building does not feature a “main front door” for an entrance. The
entrances along Rock and 6th will be highlighted by the metal fencing and the inset bays.
WALL AREAS
The wall areas will be covered in Hardie Board lap siding or brick punctuated by windows or
large shuttered areas over the entrances. See “GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE
EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE” on page six for window and door details.
Page 16 of 25
DETAILING
WINDOW BOXES: There will be metal window
boxes to hold clay pots underneath the windows.
They will be by Hooks and Lattice Company,
Simple Elegance window box cage.
FAÇADE
The façade will feature Hardie Plank lap siding in
smooth finish. Hardietrim trim and fascia boards
will be used for corner trim boards and trim boards
around windows and to separate individual floors.
The brick veneer on two of the bays will be
Rosedal Blend. The windows will be a white vinyl
window by Weather Barr.
SCALE
The proposed building will be the largest building in the area. But will feature the seven bays
that will break up the mass on the Rock Street façade. The bays on the 6th street façade will
also break up the mass. The roofing design will reduce the height of the overall roof. From a
height standpoint, it will be comparable to the height of the three story apartments across Rock
Street.
MASSING
See Scale above.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item with the recommendation of
approval.
Commissioner BJ Bowen asked about the height of the fence as stated in the guidelines. It is
specified at 6’. The guidelines state that larger properties could have larger fences. Typical
fences are 36” in the area. Commissioner Wilson brought up different uses and scenarios. He
asked about what the updated guidelines said on fence heights. Mr. Minyard read the
guidelines on page 58 on how the fence heights were modified. Commissioner Page Wilson
commented that the commission should be consistent with the fence heights on different
buildings and uses.
Chair Toni Johnson asked about the American Legion building on Capitol Ave. She wanted to
be sure that it was not on the agenda tonight. The Commission will only be voting on the new
building, parking lot fencing, and signage tonight. The applicant will need to spell that out
tonight.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked about the location of the signage and that I could limit
pedestrian traffic. Mr. Minyard said that the applicant will need to clarify.
Window Box
Page 17 of 25
Frank Barksdale, AMR Architects, made a presentation of the item. He explained that it was a
three story building and there were 12 units per floor and composed of one and two bedroom
units. The signage will be between the sidewalk and the fence perpendicular to the street. At
Sixth Street, the sign will not block the sidewalk and will be at a 45 degree angle. Chair
Johnson asked how much the distance is between the building and the sidewalk. Mr. Minyard
said that the drawings show the sign between the sidewalk and the building. He continued that
they would need to work on a franchise agreement if it was in the right of way.
He amended his application to remove the existing building from tonight’s hearing.
Commissioner Bowen stated that there were 36 units and 31 spaces. Mr. Barksdale explained
that they will have on street parking and that there may be some parking sharing with
neighboring properties.
Chair Toni Johnson asked how many units were in MacArthur Commons. Mr. Barksdale
answered 59 units. She asked why he needs a 6’ fence. Mr. Barksdale stated that there is a lot
of suspicious activity in the area and that they want tenants to feel safe for now. Hopefully,
there will not need to be a fence in the future, five to ten years.
She asked if he would be willing to reduce the size of the sign. Mr. Barksdale said that he
would consider reducing the size of the sign, but the signage was important. If they had to
reduce it, they would. But they would prefer not to. The sign was designed based on the size of
the letters on the sign.
Commissioner Russell said he was not concerned with the relation to the American Legion
building with the new building. This area could be unsafe for tenants. The new building could
obstruct the view of building the windows in the building. He also added that the sign may be
too large to fit in that area in relation to the building and the area with setback.
Mr. Barksdale said to make the property work with the land cost; they need the project as
drawn. They have 10’ ceiling in the living areas and the height was dependent on that. They
want to build a quality product that is rentable.
Commissioner Wilson asked about the zoning and commented that the thought it was R4-A
across the street. Mr. Minyard stated he was unsafe without looking at a map.
Chair Johnson asked what was in the upper floor with the square windows. Mr. Barksdale said
it was a lofted ceiling in the living room and bedrooms of the end apartment. Chair Johnson
asked Commissioner Russell if the pitch of the roof was reduced, would that ease some of his
concerns. Commissioner Russell noted the low hipped across the street and the flat roofs. He
stated it would be better to have a lower roof. Mr. Barksdale, said that you would mostly see
overhang from the street and not the roof pitch. He said that the end elevation would be more
derisible with the current pitch when viewed form the south.
Commissioner Russell asked about the accent trim and the window mullions. He asked if the
client would consider 2 wide by 4 tall munitions instead of 2 wide by 6 tall. Mr. Russell said that
the panes being taller than wide would be better. Mr. Barksdale replied that they are two wide
by six tall panes and they are vinyl windows. Mr. Minyard clarified that the detail shot of the
windows on page 7 of the staff report were from the website. Mr. Barksdale said that if he could
get the windows with 4 panes tall, he would, but was unsure if they made them like that. Chair
Page 18 of 25
Johnson asked what the guidelines state on vinyl windows. Mr. Minyard responded that in new
construction, the guidelines are a lot more lenient than replacement windows. In new
construction, this commission has been more lenient, although you do not establish precedent.
Commissioner Russell asked if they muntins were applied or internal. Mr. Barksdale said they
are applied to the outside from the best he could tell.
There were no citizens to speak on the item.
Commissioner Wilson asked Commissioner Russell if those were requirements or are they
stating points. Commissioner Russell stated that he was unsure what remedy he had on these
issues. He is concerned about the choke point of the building. Mr. Minyard stated that this item
is going to the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission later and they review the
separation of buildings. The Planning Commission may have an issue with the separation.
Mr. Minyard apologized for the fact that there are only 5 members present at the hearing. If
there are five or fewer commissioners present, the applicant is offered to be able to defer. Mr.
Jimmy Moses said that they did not wish to defer at this time. He stated that they were on the
Planning Commission docket later and needed to make that hearing. He continued to speak of
the project, trying to add density to the area and not violating the fire codes.
Chari Johnson commented that it was a tight area at the rear of the existing legion hall building.
Mr. Moses said that they liked the commercial nature of the building and that it was non-
contributing to the district. They will come back with a more commercial building entrance off
Capitol Avenue at a later date.
Commissioner Russell asked if they would consider closing the gap between the buildings with
fencing. Mr. Moses said that they could. He amended the application to close area in choke
point with fencing.
Commissioner Jennifer Carmen said that she thought the windows are an issue if the windows
could have applied versus encased muntins. The application was amended to have surface
applied muntins.
The current amended application stands as such:
1) Not reviewing the existing American Legion building in this application. They will reapply at a
later date for those changes
2) Pane arrangement on the taller windows to be 2 panes wide by 4 panes tall, if available from
the manufacturer.
3) Add fencing in choke point area between buildings to fence off area and make more secure.
4) The muntins will be surface applied to the outside instead of encased (enclosed).
Commissioner Wilson said that he would support the application with changes. Commissioner
Russell made a motion to approve the application with amendments. Commissioner Bowen
seconded and the motion was passed with 5 ayes and 2 absent.
Mr. Minyard said that he would notify the Commissioners of when the Subdivision Committee
was.
Page 19 of 25
DATE: March 9, 2015
APPLICANT: Jennifer Carman
ADDRESS: 908 Scott
COA REQUEST: Porch Restoration
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 908 Scott. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 10, Block 10, Original
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The Pfeifer House was built c 1874 as a single family
house. The 2007 survey form states: “This simple front
gabled Italianate house has few typical details, wide
cornice boards and tall narrow windows with vertical
mullion illustrating the style. Awnings cover front widows.
Porch…shutters and tall chimneys are missing.” It is
considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur
Park Historic District.
This application is for a Porch Restoration to replace the
porch per pictorial evidence.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On April 21, 2000, a COA was approved and issued to
Mary Buchannan for the installation of driveways at 900/908/916 and 920 Scott Street.
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. Two.
I. Location of Project
Page 20 of 25
Existing east elevation Historic photo of porch to be reconstructed
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The applicant wishes to reconstruct the porch that was originally built on the house according to
pictorial evidence. They also wish to install shutters on the windows as well as replace the front
door. On other applications, the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation are
used. However, this project requires the Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Restoration to
be used. The manual The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties with Guidelines for the Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing
Historic Buildings, 1995 by Kay D. Weeks and Anne E. Grimmer, is available at
http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/treatment-guidelines.pdf It states on page
117:
“Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form,
features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by
means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction
of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading
of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to
make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.”
Those ten “Standards for Restoration” are as follows:
1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which
reflects the property’s restoration period.
2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and
preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and
spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken.
3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and
use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and
features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible,
identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future
research.
4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical
periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal.
Page 21 of 25
5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or
examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be
preserved.
6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than
replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a
distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture,
and, where possible, materials.
7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history
will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other
properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically.
8. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the
gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials
will not be used.
9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be protected and preserved
in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be
undertaken.
10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.
Also, on page 119 of the document, it states:
“Rather than maintaining and preserving a building as it has evolved over time, the
expressed goal of the Standards for Restoration and Guidelines for Restoring
Historic Buildings is to make the building appear as it did at a particular—and most
significant—time in its history. First, those materials and features from the
“restoration period” are identified, based on thorough historical research. Next,
features from the restoration period are maintained, protected, repaired (i.e.,
stabilized, consolidated, and conserved), and replaced, if necessary. As opposed to
other treatments, the scope of work in Restoration can include removal of features
from other periods; missing features from the restoration period may be replaced,
based on documentary and physical evidence, using traditional materials or
compatible substitute materials. The final guidance emphasizes that only those
designs that can be documented as having been built should be re-created in a
restoration project.”
Furthermore, on page 119 of the document, it states:
“Most Restoration projects involve re-creating features that were significant to the
building at a particular time, but are now missing. Examples could include a stone
balustrade, a porch, or cast iron storefront. Each missing feature should be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. Without sufficient
documentation for these “re-creations,” an accurate depiction cannot be achieved.
Combining features that never existed together historically can also create a false
sense of history. Using traditional materials to depict lost features is always the
preferred approach; however, using compatible substitute material is an acceptable
alternative in Restoration because, as emphasized, the goal of this treatment is to
replicate the “appearance” of the historic building at a particular time, not to retain
and preserve all historic materials as they have evolved over time. If documentary
and physical evidence are not available to provide an accurate re-creation of missing
features, the treatment Rehabilitation might be a better overall approach to project
work.”
Page 22 of 25
Historic photos have guided the work of the architect and applicant to recreate the porch. The
porch will be built as close as possible to the photo that is included in the handouts. It is on
page HDC-1 of the 11x17 handout. The porch will feature an upper arcade of turned spandrels
accented with turned, decorative brackets and drops joined by running molding. The posts and
balustrades feature turned rails. This is illustrated on page HDC-2. HDC-4 shows the spindles
that are to be used in the reconstruction.
Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Side Elevation
The porch roof will be metal and sloped with built in gutters with the downspouts close to the
body of the house at the rear of the porch. The pitch will be slight and may be seen from the
ground. Iron cresting will be installed at the edge of the roof as historically shown. This section
of the porch shown on page HDC-3 shows the location of the cresting as well as paint colors.
Page HDC-4 also shows the detailing of the shutters to be installed on the house.
Page 23 of 25
Proposed Shutters Proposed Turnings and Spindles
The reconstructed porch along with the shutters, as described in the application documents,
fulfills the standards as written above. The three exceptions are the decision not to rebuild the
solarium that is thought not to be part of the original construction, to build the porch on the
existing concrete base instead of replacing it with a wood porch, and to add built in gutters with
downspouts to be located at the corners of the main body of the house.
The cover letter states that the concrete porch floor seems to have been created in the scale
and footprint of what was once a wooden tongue and groove floor. The concrete steps to the
porch appear in the historic photo. The applicant would prefer to build the porch on top of the
existing concrete porch floor instead of demolishing it. It is Staff’s opinion that the
reconstruction of the porch will far overshadow the remaining concrete floor that is present.
However, if the concrete floor proves to be not structurally sufficient to support the reconstructed
porch, it would then be Staff’s opinion to remove the concrete floor and install the wood porch
floor.
The front door will be replaced with a period correct door. The door can be seen in the historic
photo. It features a large glass opening.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
Page 24 of 25
2. Obtaining a building permit.
3. Report to Staff if the concrete porch floor is not structurally sound to support the
reconstructed porch and amend the building permit accordingly.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 9, 2015
With the absences and the necessary recusals, the Commission would only have three
members to vote on this item, which is not a quorum. This is a commission deferral and the City
will send out the notices. Commissioner Jennifer Carman voiced that she would like to defer
this item. Commissioner BJ Bowen made a motion to defer the item for one month and
Commissioner Page Wilson seconded. The motion passes with 5 ayes and 2 absent.
V. Other Matters
Preservation Plan Implementation update
The Commission will be notified when the committee meets and will be presented with
summaries of the meetings at the HDC meetings. The first meeting will be on March 20th at
10:30. The meetings will be at Curran Hall downstairs.
Enforcement issues
None noted.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff wrote 2 COCs this month concerning 904 Scott for exterior renovations and 1401 Scott for
repair to the exterior stairs and sidewalk repair.
Guidelines Revision
The consultant will be at the hearing on April 13th. Focus group meetings will also be on that
day. Chair Johnson asked if there was public notice for the meeting. Focus groups are
invitation only, but the regular public meeting is open to all. Mr. Minyard has been in contact
with the consultant on better ways to get the public involved: email blasts, us mailing,
neighborhood associations, etc. to try to get the property owners involved.
Commissioner Wilson asked who was the consultant and all team members on the project. Mr.
Minyard answered Phil Walker of The Walker Collaborative and Phil Thomason, both of
Nashville Tennessee. Commissioner Wilson asked for a list of all of the people that were
solicited and who submitted an RFQ. Mr. Minyard stated that he would send list of who was
solicited, who responded and what websites was it posted on.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens who chose to speak during Citizen Communication.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:17 p.m.
1
Attest:
JRldto6vvt-
ay�AP10-'q
Date
I� J
Date
Page 25 of 25