HDC_04 13 2015Page 1 of 11
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, April 13, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Vice Chair BJ Bowen
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
Page Wilson
Jennifer Carman
Jeremiah Russell
Members Absent: Chair Toni Johnson
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Spencer Watson
Emily Noah
Dick Kelly
Mary Kelly
Dale Pekar
Kathy Wells
Nikki Senn
Hillary Hatley
Lindsey Moore
Rhea Roberts
Rebecca Pekar
Stephanie Roberts
Dir. Erma Hendrix
Phil Walker
Phil Thomason
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Page Wilson to approve the minutes of March 13, 2013
as submitted. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the minutes were approved with
a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent.
Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Page 2 of 11
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
DATE: April 13, 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.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 11
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.
Page 4 of 11
4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical
periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal.
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
Page 5 of 11
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.”
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 6 of 11
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.
Page 7 of 11
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
2. 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.
COMMISSION ACTION: April 13, 2015
Vice Chair BJ Bowen expressed sympathy to Commissioner Jennifer Carmen on behalf of the
entire Commission on the loss by fire of the structure she owned at 908 Scott Street. Staff
received a request by the applicant to withdraw the application.
There was a motion to withdraw the application by Commissioner Page Wilson and seconded
by Commissioner Jeremiah Russell. The motion was approved with a voter of 6 ayes and 1
absent.
Page 8 of 11
IV. Other Matters
Preservation Plan Implementation update
Brian Minyard, Staff, handed out the summary of the meeting. There was a discussion on
whether the Commission wanted a verbal presentation of the summary of if a written document
would suffice. It was decided that for the first time, this time, a verbal presentation was needed.
For later meetings, a written summary provided to the Commissioners would suffice. He
summarized the document for the Commission.
Tuck-pointing as a COC versus a COA
Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation on the matter. He noted that this has been on his
radar for edits to be included in the general edits to the guidelines. The State statute and the
city ordinance provide for maintenance to be approved on a Staff level. Staff maintained that
repairing tuck pointing of brick is a maintenance item. However, the guidelines state that tuck-
pointing requires a Certificate of Appropriateness. There was discussion on what constitutes
correct tuck-pointing practices; composition of mortar, dyes or colorants added to the mortar;
type of mortar joint to be appropriate to the structure and to be watertight; etc. Commissioner
Jennifer Carman stated that the questions on the techniques and materials should be
addressed to the contractor and not the homeowner. Commissioner Page Wilson stated that
the Commission should comply with state and city ordinances when it applies to tuck-pointing.
Mr. Minyard noted that he will work with the experts at AHPP on the technical aspects of tuck-
pointing.
Debra Weldon, city Attorney, stated that a motion was needed on this. Commissioner Page
Wilson asked if this was changing the bylaws. Mr. Minyard stated that it was not. A motion was
made to not require a Certificate of Appropriateness for tuck-pointing brick and to update the
Guidelines to reflect such by Commissioner Wilson and was seconded by Commissioner
Russell and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent.
Enforcement issues
None.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff wrote 2 COCs this morning in response to fire damage at 904 and 914 Scott Street.
Guidelines Revision
Phil Walker, of the Walker Collaborative, made a presentation of the initial observations and
review of the existing Guidelines focusing on infill development. His initial observation was to
keep the designation of the National Register District while allowing infill in the district. The
Secretary of Interior Standards does not really address new infill but does address additions.
The guidelines as is are pretty good, but the need more detail, expanding on what is already
there. He spoke of the 11 items listed in the ordinance that are to be reviewed when infill is
addressed.
Phil Thomason spoke of the infill that is occurring in Nashville that was the spotlight of the 2009
National Trust Conference. He broke down infill into three categories, replica, replica lite and
contemporary. All three of these can be compatible in the district. He then started discussing
the infill that had been built in the district. He classified 618 Rock as replica lite and it not
pushing the envelope on design. 617 Cumberland was also classified as replica lite but
regarded as new construction. On 320 E 15th, he commented that the massing does not work
as well and does not blend as well as others. 234 E 15th has a massing issue with the house
Page 9 of 11
being more parallel to the street instead of perpendicular to the street. He continued that at the
edges of the district, it may be more appropriate to have more contemporary structures versus
the middle of the district.
Mr. Thomason then spoke on 1414 Rock Street which he considered interesting but trying to do
different things. On 1421 Cumberland, he spoke of the porch and the 1/1 windows. At 515
Capitol, he spoke of the number of elements that work and that the horizontality has been
broken up. 1016 McGowan presents more of a solid wall and lacks fenestration. It also has
massing issues. Continuing on the Shell Station at I-30 and 9th, he asked the question of the
Commission as to how much flexibility did they want. On 815 Sherman, he considered that
replica lite and it picks up a lot of the elements from next door.
Speaking on the Fire Station on 9th Street, Mr. Thomason stated that the massing was okay
and noted the odd combination of craftsman details with Palladian windows. He said that it
could be a good example of an institutional building picking up details form the neighborhood.
The Police Station at Capitol and Cumberland has a roofline that picks up on the neighborhood,
is contemporary in design and a mixture of materials. He noted that it might be too busy.
Commissioner Page Wilson asked if the consultants believed that the Secretary of the Interior
Standards, (SOIS) applied to new buildings. Mr. Walker referenced Standard #9 and said that it
could be argued and interpreted either way.
Mr. Thomason stated that the SOIS for Rehabilitation state that “…the new construction shall be
differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing size, scale and architectural
features…” But how different and how compatible?
Commissioner Wilson stated that the SOIS for Rehabilitation is not for infill and that they should
be building in their time and place. Mr. Walker stated that they should be looking for
cohesiveness in design from a National Register district standpoint. Commissioner Jeremiah
Russell asked where you draw the time line. Districts change over time from Victorian to
Craftsman. They are only historic because they are old. The periods of significance to 1965
has a wide variety of styles. He stated that in Standard #9, it relates to the integrity of the
property, not the district. New buildings should be of its time, while adhering to the last part of
#9.
Mr. Walker stated that if the goal is to preserve the NR status of the district, it will influence the
guidelines. Commissioner Wilson asked how many contributing structures were in the district
currently. Mr. Minyard replied that the district was currently around 70% for contributing
buildings. Commissioner Wilson said that there were 31 vacant lots and that they were not in
danger of losing the district.
Commissioner Wilson asked what the predominant style of the district is. Mr. Walker stated that
there is not one.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked about materials. Mr. Walker stated that they would
address materials. Commissioner Russell said that the material list should be inclusive versus
exclusive. Mr. Walker said that they could include both. There was a discussion of looking at
modern materials which mimic historical ones. Vice Chair BJ Bowen said that many
Commissioners want a list of yes and no materials. Mr. Walker said that how a material is used
is as important as the material list. The option is to try to allow more flexibility in design but want
to hear more from Commissioners.
Page 10 of 11
Commissioner Russell stated that the mass, size and scale was more important than the
material used on a structure. New technology changes every 18 months and inclusive versus
exclusive lists are dangerous. He continued that contemporary design is good, but replica lite is
dangerous.
Commissioner Boaitey stated that those contemporary projects that were approved by the
Commission on the edge of the district were reflective of the fact that they were on the edge of
the district. The new buildings should keep in context of the NR district.
Commissioner Wilson stated that he did not want lists of prohibited or inclusive lists; the
Commission should concentrate on the 11 topics listed in the ordinance.
Mr. Walker noted that most plans want replica lite, not contemporary structures. He is looking
for marching orders from the Commission. Mr. Wilson wants to use modern technology today
like modern technology was used 100 years ago.
Commissioner Mark Brown stated that he disagrees with Commissioners Wilson and Russell.
He thinks compatible means similar to the old ones. He thinks that material have a lot to do with
it and scale is important. Vice Chair BJ Bowen agreed on the compatibility statement.
Commissioner Jennifer Carman stated she was torn on the issues. She loves all styles. It has
lots to be said about context of the new building. For example in the 2300 block of Summit, the
entire block is four squares. The rhythm of the block is unique and the context is substantial.
Replacing 908 Scott Street in the middle of Italianate structures with a contemporary structure
would be wrong. Infill is all context sensitive. Commissioner Russell agreed that the hierarchy
of massing, porches, bases, etc. has to be drawn to imply a new building.
Mr. Thomason stated that other HDCs struggle with the balance of replica lite versus
contemporary. It is a challenge to an architect to work with the context of the street. Replica lite
is easier, but not as good architecture.
Mr. Walker noted the list of 11 topics in the ordinance. He can write the guidelines thinking of
each topic per compatibility and look at the context. If there is a strong pattern of cohesiveness,
then a strict interpretation for the 11 topics, if there is no strong context or cohesiveness, then
the building would have to adhere to a lesser standard. Commissioner Russell thinks that all 11
can be applied to all structures. Commissioner Wilson said that he could show examples of all
materials in the district. Commissioner Russell noted the rhythm of materials, corrugated tin
and wood siding.
Director Erma Hendrix, Ward 1, asked if the state has to approve of this conversation. Mr.
Minyard relied no. She noted that some of the infill looked horrible to her.
Rhea Roberts, QQA, said that she was a big fan of infill and contemporary. She stated that she
wanted to hear from property owners as to what they thought.
Lindsey Moore, who owns property at 1407 Rock Street, enjoys contemporary but does not
want to build to a contemporary style house. She wants to be allowed to use modern materials
on a historic style house.
Rebecca Pekar, 1010 Rock Street, is concerned about this topic; she lives on a street that has
historically significant buildings. After the Behr grocery store burned, she is concerned that a
contemporary structure on that site would be wrong and could harm the charm of her street.
The charm is the older buildings and the new needs to fit in somehow.
Dick Kelly, 914 Scott, noted that Chenal will eventually be a historic district. They need to keep
our district similar to what we have now. He would prefer the replica style for new buildings.
Stephanie Roberts, 1014 Rock Street, disagrees. She is an old house person and has owned
her cottage for 20 years. She thinks that modern structures are beautiful and unique but do not
belong in her neighborhood. Other neighborhoods have compatible infill and we should learn
from their mistakes.
Citizen Communication
Kathy Wells, 1015 Scott, spoke to the Commission and urged them to attend the next public
hearing of the 1 -30 expansion project. That project goes alongside the historic district and the
intersection of it with 1 -630 goes through this district. The Commission asked if the speaker for
the project could come back to talk with the Commission again at a later meeting.
Rhea Roberts, QQA, encouraged the Commission to attend the QQA Spring tour of homes on
May 9 -10. There was a clarification that this tour was not either of the tours that were scheduled
for the Commission.
V. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:45 p.m.
Attest:
Chai
I
6
Secretary/St ff
Date
Date
Page 11 of 11