HDC_06 08 2015Page 1 of 15
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, June 8, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Toni Johnson
BJ Bowen
Kwadjo Boaitey
Page Wilson
Jennifer Carman
Jeremiah Russell
Members Absent: Mark Brown
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Matt Gardner, Chelsea Boozer, Kathy Wells, John Bush,
Becky and Dale Pekar, Tony Bozynski, Rhea Roberts,
Mary and Dick Kelly, Stephanie Roberts, Keith Canfield,
and Richard Butler.
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Page Wilson to approve the minutes of May 11, 2015 as
submitted. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote of 6
ayes and 1 absent (Brown).
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
Page 2 of 15
DATE: May 11, 2015
APPLICANT: Tony Curtis
ADDRESS: 603 E 15th and 520 E 15th
COA REQUEST: Relocation of house
This application will be deferred to the June 8, 2015
agenda because of lack of public notice in a timely
manner.
COMMISSION ACTION: May 11, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the
Commission that the notices had not been met on this
item and should be deferred. A motion was made by
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell to defer to the June 8,
2015 meeting and was seconded by Commissioner
Jennifer Carman and the motion passed with a vote of
7 ayes and o noes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff has not had contact with the applicant since the
last hearing to provide proper submittals for the
application. Staff recommends withdraw without
prejudice.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 8, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission that the Applicant had asked to
withdraw the item. Staff noted that the bylaws do not allow for withdrawal without prejudice, so
Staff will change their recommendation to withdrawal. Staff clarified that if the item came back
in front of the commission within 12 months, the Commission would need to waive the bylaws
for them to hear that item. A motion was made by Commissioner BJ Bowen to withdraw the
item and was seconded by Commissioner Jeremiah Russell and the motion passed with a vote
of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Brown).
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. A.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 15
DATE: June 8, 2015
APPLICANT: Matt Gardner, Dept. of Parks and Recreation
ADDRESS: 1201 Commerce
COA REQUEST: Storm Windows
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1201 Commerce. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 6 and adjacent street
to east, Block 154, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
The survey states: “This craftsman style firehouse has
shallow roof slopes, multiple dormers, half timbering at
gables and multiple casement windows. The use was
changed when a new fire station was constructed. It was
built around 1917. It was operational as a fire station
until the mid 1960’s.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This property has a “Conservation Easement” on the
exterior of the building that has been deeded to the State.
AHPP, through its Conservation Easement Coordinator,
monitors all improvements to the exterior of the building.
Staff has been in contact with AHPP and their opinion on this action is forthcoming.
This application is for installation of Storm Windows. A total of sixteen storm windows would be
installed on both floors on the east, south and west facades.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On June 5, 2012, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued to install a deck.
On March 13, 2012, a Certificate of Appropriateness was issued to replace windows, masonry
tuck-pointing and repair, install a fire safety door, adding stucco to building, signage, lighting,
fencing, removal of dock, and addition of deck.
On April 20, 2011, a Certificate of Compliance was given to repair the brackets and exposed
rafters on the building and some roofing repair and skylight with a Certificate of Compliance.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
Location of Project
Page 4 of 15
Existing north elevation Existing south elevation
Existing east elevation Existing west elevation
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The Guidelines state on page 44:
Screen and Storm Windows:
Page 5 of 15
Interior storm windows are encouraged and preferred. Interior storm windows do not
require a COA nor the associated costs of the COA. Exterior screen and storm windows
should be wood or baked-on enamel or anodized aluminum in a color to match the
window sash paint color and fit within the window frames, not overlap the frames.
Screens should be full-view. Storm windows may also be mounted on the inside of
windows. Half screen and screen or storm windows smaller than original window, are
not recommended.
The proposed storm windows would be a single pane fixed with clear glass. They will be hinged
at the top with a continuous hinge. There are frame colors options available from the
manufacturer, although no color has been specified.
The ground floor windows on the east, west and south sides for a total of eight storm windows
are proposed to be installed. On the second floor, eight casement windows on the east and
west side would be covered in storm windows. The windows on the north side will not have
storm windows installed because the lower ground floor windows are modern more energy
efficient casements and the upper dormer casements are in an unheated space.
Information from Hostelling International on the energy efficiency standards is included at the
end of this report.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Provide written permission from AHPP concerning façade easement to HDC Staff prior
to installation of storm windows.
2. Obtaining a building permit.
Historic Postcard of Firehouse #2 showing north and east elevations
with unenclosed porch on north
Page 6 of 15
COMMISSION ACTION: June 8, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. He noted that notice
requirements were met for this application and there were no citizen comments. The question
was raised as to what if AHPP said no to the storm windows. Mr. Minyard responded that it
would be like a lot of other actions that the Commission approved and that the owners did not
execute.
Matt Gardner, Parks and Recreation, made a presentation. He stated that storm windows were
common in the district. He said that there was an option of colors but would probably go with
the bronze color standard window. The hosteling organization, based out of the Netherlands, is
very serious on energy conservation. The Hostel has done other energy conservation items in
the building also.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked why he was requesting storm windows instead of
repairing the windows. Mr. Gardner replied that the energy efficiency would be better with the
storms in addition to the original windows, and that the original windows were single pane. He
was not in favor of replacing the windows. He also noted that there will be beds up against the
windows so that the windows would not open. Commissioner Russell asked if the casement
windows would be able to be opened. Mr. Gardner noted that the installation of the storms
would make the windows inoperable. He asked about removable interior storm windows. Mr.
Gardner stated that he understood the comment, but it is difficult to have a public building where
people open the windows. There are too many factors to have operable windows. Mr. Gardner
added that storm windows can always be removed later if a change was to be made. In 2001,
Parks reglazed and repaired the existing windows after the tornado. Mr. Gardner said that the
windows would be repaired prior to the installation of the storm windows.
Commissioner Page Wilson said that the casements may only be able to be opened 4 inches or
so anyway. The Secretary of Interior Standards is okay with storm windows. He has no problem
with the storm windows.
Chair Toni Johnson asked if there were any citizens that wanted to comment on the application.
Kathy Wells, owner of 1015 Scott, was curious about interior storm windows. She asked if it
could be done. Mr. Gardner said that it could be done, although it is a rare treatment. Exterior
storms provides against more deterioration of the original windows. The windows that were
installed new four years ago have already been required to be touched up once. The exterior
storms are also for the preservation of the windows.
Commissioner Russell said that he was much more in favor of interior storms. Windows require
maintenance whether they are covered up or not. He continued that covering up all of the
original windows with storm windows is not a welcome addition to the neighborhood.
Chair Johnson would say that interior storms are more prevalent with casement windows.
Commissioner BJ Bowen asked if the applicant would change his application to interior storm
windows. Mr. Gardner said there were issues to consider.
Commissioner Wilson spoke of the history of the hostel and them possibly being the first
certified hostel in the state.
Page 7 of 15
Mr. Minyard read the guidelines aloud concerning interior storm windows from page 44. The
applicant could pursue interior storm windows without coming back to the commission if AHPP
said no to the exterior storms. They would not have to go to AHPP for interior, since the AHPP
easement is only exterior.
Mr. Gardner said that he was going to keep the application for exterior storm windows.
Commissioner Wilson asked if the change to interior would require a COA. Mr. Minyard stated
no.
Commissioner Bowen asked about studies on windows. Mr. Minyard spoke that the studies that
he could cite said that a properly maintained single pane with a storm window are to a similar
energy level than a new window. He continued that he thought a good interior storm would get
you to a similar energy savings.
Becky Pekar, 1010 Rock, commented on repainting the windows after four years. She spoke of
the hostel’s struggle getting going, and asked if the maintenance cost would be prohibitive for
the exterior windows without the protection of the exterior storms. Mr. Gardner replied that the
City of Little Rock is challenged with the number of things that have had to be taken on with the
building. Since the 2001 renovation they have replaced the knee braces and barge rafters on
the building.
Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve with staff recommendations. Commissioner
Kwadjo Boaitey seconded. Staff asked for a show of hands vote to clarify the voice vote. The
motion failed 2 ayes (Wilson and Carmen), 4 noes and 1 absent (Brown). The application was
denied.
See later entry in meeting minutes for further discussion on item.
Page 8 of 15
V. Other Matters
Preservation Plan Implementation update
The meeting had been moved because of conflicts of scheduled. One person attended in
addition to staff, so we declared that we did not have a meeting.
Enforcement issues
No enforcement issues at this time.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff wrote no COCs this month.
Expunging the record
There was a discussion on expunging the record on the Hostel storm windows started by
Commissioner Wilson. Commissioner Russell stated that there was an invitation to amend his
application and that he chose to go ahead with a vote as filed. Debra Weldon read from the
bylaws on the matter. Mr. Minyard stated that in the bylaws, the purpose would be to file a
substitute motion for other action. He asked if that would mean that a different motion would be
filed and what that motion would be other than approve exterior motions. Commissioner Wilson
feels bad for them being a non-profit and the time an effort that has gone into the project.
Page 9 of 15
DATE: June 8, 2015
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District Wide
COA REQUEST: Guidelines Revisions
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The City of Little Rock through the CLG program applied for and received a grant for the
revision of the Guidelines concerning Infill Development. The majority of these changes are a
result of the work submitted by the consultant. Additional items that have been noted by Staff
since the last revision have been added to the list to be reviewed by the Commission.
Please refer to the minutes of April 13 and May 11 for background information concerning
citizen input and the discussion of the Key Issues Report.
In the pages below and the handouts of the Guidelines, all new text is in red and the
existing text is in black.
As suggested in the Key issue report, the Guidelines have been reorganized as follows:
Old
section
numbers
Old
page
numbers
Headings/subjects New
Section
Numbers
New
page
numbers
I 6-8 Overview I 1-2
II 9-14 Historic Preservation in LR II 3-6
IV 41-52 Treatment of original materials - residential III 9
VIII 67-71 Treatment of original materials - Commercial and
Mixed Use
III 9-10
Individual Building Elements - Residential III 11-20
Individual Building Elements – Commercial and Mixed
Use
III 21-26
V 53-54 Additions IV 27-32
V 55-56 New construction – residential V 33-44
VIII 71 New construction - commercial V 45-52
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.
Page 10 of 15
VII 65-66 Relocation/demolition VI 53-54
VI 57-64 Site design VII 55-62
III 15-40 Architectural styles VIII 63-88
I 1-5 Intro, legal and procedures IX 89-93
IX 73-110 Appendices with state and local laws first X 94-152
The bulk of the consultants work was revising New Construction Residential on pages 55-57 in
Section V and New Construction Commercial on pages 71-72 in section VIII. Those pages
have been removed and replaced with the Consultants text. They have been formatted to match
the format of the document.
It is the goal of Staff to reshoot all photos in the Guidelines in color before publication.
There are small edits that are being proposed by Staff to update the Guidelines. Some are typos
and clarifications and some are substantive. They are described below.
Staff has updated the number of total districts in the city on the first page of the “Overview of
Historic Preservation and Design Guidelines” on Guidelines page 1 from thirteen to twenty.
Staff has submitted in this report to add to the language for the review of moving houses into the
district. The language was very broad and vague and needed clarification. That language is
attached on Guidelines page 53.
Staff has submitted a modification to the Fences section under “Design Guidelines for Site
Design” on Guidelines page 56 and 57. When the backyard of a corner property “A” abuts the
front yard of the adjacent property “B”, and when property “A” sites on a corner and installs a
fence taller than 36” abutting the street, it may diminish the front yard of property “B”. The
zoning ordinance states that between a required building setback line and a street right-of-way,
the maximum height shall be lower than other fences in the rear yard. The zoning ordinance
would require the street facing privacy fence (greater than 4’ tall) to be set back the distance of
the side yard setback of 10% of the lot or 5 feet. Those five feet may differ from the actual
setback of the primary structure. The HDC
may be stricter than the zoning code, but
cannot be less strict without the project
having a public hearing with the Planning
Commission or the Board of Adjustment.
The proposed language is below and the
complete page is shown near the end of this
document.
Fences in side and rear yards with street
frontages should not impede views of
adjacent houses that have a different
orientation. For those fences, the
location of the fences that are in excess of
36”, as shown in red, should be the wall
of the primary building or 15’, whichever
is less.
Proposed Graphic
Page 11 of 15
On Guidelines page 90, in the middle of the page under “This COA requirement does not apply
to:” the following changes have been made. An additional condition was added the last time the
Guidelines were edited, but the “or” was left between condition 2 and 3 instead of being moved
to between condition 3 and 4. In tis edit, additional text of “as defined by the zoning ordinance”
was added to condition number 1.
In the Appendix, on guidelines page 97, the information on the Central High National Register
District has been updated with the current numbers. On guidelines page 96, the MacArthur
Park national Register District numbers have also been updated.
On guidelines page 102 in the “comparison of the National Register and Local Ordinance
Historic Districts, there were two typos. The words “patters of intake” should be “patterns of
intact”. Also, state income tax credits needed to be added to the text.
On guidelines page 126, text has been changed to not require COAs for tuck-pointing of brick.
It has also been changed on guidelines page 131 under the Maintenance appendix.
Updated graphics will be added on page 95 under appendix A – Map of Historic Districts.
Dunbar NR District needs to be added to the map.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 8, 2015
Phil Walker, of The Walker Collaborative, made a presentation of the proposed guideline
changes. He noted that the guidelines were good but were a little thin on the infill standards.
He went over the process that was followed on the project. He noted he used the 11 factors
listed in the ordinance to help guide the text. He noted that it was all about context for the infill
buildings. He noted that the input he had received from the public was for more traditional
design on the high compatibility scale. The compatibility of context is an atypical approach.
This is an option for you to consider and is something they are not advocating. A map has been
provided to see the contributing and non-contributing structures. He clarified that historic
precedence as used in the guidelines is defined as a common occurrence of that detail or style,
not a singular example of that use.
Commissioner Page Wilson asked about Task 2 – field work and what was done. Mr. Walker
responded that a windshield survey was taken, photos were taken and some of the
neighborhood was walked. It was not meant to be an architectural survey; you already have
one of those.
Mr. Walker then continued his presentation on the Residential Guidelines and went through his
nine criteria with explanation of each.
Commissioner Wilson asked if he had a problem with massing, if all of them should look the
same. Mr. Walker said it did not bother him, not that everything would look the same, but the
Commission should follow their guidelines. Commissioner Wilson then asked for the area at
Rock, 6th and Capitol, was an area of high, moderate or low compatibility. Mr. Walker said high.
Page 12 of 15
Commissioner Wilson asked if a contemporary structure would be appropriate. Mr. Walker said
that it is a high area of compatibility.
Commissioner Wilson asked about the 15th street corridor. He mentioned the Hillcrest DOD.
He asked if he gave consideration to the other community’s studies. Mr. Walker said it was not
in the scope to do case studies. He stated that the team has 30-35 years of experience in the
field. Most cities do a one size fits all on the guidelines, not the three tiers: high, moderate and
low compatibility. He continued that he tried to find something that would allow what would
typically not be compatible. Does a project get it half right or all of them right? He was trying
to go a different approach on this. A low compatibility building dilutes the district, but at the end
of the day, it is up to the Commission. He does not recommend this approach.
Chair Toni Johnson asked him what he would consider changing. Mr. Walker commented on
the height of the raised foundations and the width of the buildings. He stated that that there
needs to be a maximum width, maybe an average of that block face with a plus factor for
residential.
Commissioner Wilson asked why residential building needs to have a pitched roof. Mr. Walker
said that single family residences should have a pitched roof, but apartments and townhouses
could be flat with a parapet based on historical precedence. The main slope is to be pitched,
but components of the roof may not be pitched. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell precedence of
Italianate flat roof with parapets but they may not be in the district.
Commissioner Wilson said that you cannot discuss use. Commissioner Russell said that scale
and massing takes care of the roof issue. With the other architectural feature, the roof point is
mute. Mr. Walker said that a roof is a character defining element. He read from the guidelines
on page four under the roof forms. If you are emulating a style, go with the typical roof for that
style. Get into the building type, not the use of the space. The zoning code considers “use”,
this commission can do style.
Commissioner Russell said that the Heiple Wiedower infill studies do not meet one half of the
nine criteria. He described the buildings and went down the list of the criteria. Chair Johnson
stated that this is an issue that the commission struggles with (infill). What is the area of
context? Mr. Walker said it could be the blockface and across the street or the view-shed of the
building. This is tricky and he looked at each vacant lot and the compatibility issue but you
should not set up mini districts for each vacant lot.
Commissioner Russell said that the notion of historical precedence is too limiting for talk of
materials. Mr. Walker responded to look at the appearance of the material but that durability
should also be considered. Commissioner Wilson likes the idea of durability. He does not think
that the whole district has to be congruous. Mr. Walker says that the guidelines do not dictate
that you emulate any particular style. If you choose to do a particular style, do it correctly.
Mr. Walker then continued his presentation on the Commercial Mixed Use buildings. He said
that he was not dictating land use; that is zoning. He talked about the possibility of commercial
and mixed use buildings.
Commissioner Russell asked about the different heights proposed for different streets; would
that not be setting up mini-districts. Mr. Walker said maybe, but that the same set height did not
work for the entire district. The differences in the neighborhood with the different streets dictate
Page 13 of 15
that different heights would be appropriate. Commissioner Russell would rather not set a height
but let the surrounding buildings set the height.
Keith Canfield owns property in the district and lives at 1414 Rock. His house was shown in
one of the slides. He was glad that it was still a draft form. Compatibility and consistency were
used interchangeably in the presentation and they do not have the same definition. It is
important in the context of this discussion. When speaking of averages, the variety of houses is
large.
Rhea Roberts, QQA, sent comments earlier and will make more comments later. She stated
the compatibility level was an interesting concept. She expressed concern on how much of the
revisions are talking about replicating historic styles. Best practices are not to replicate styles.
Different styles can be built with the current guidelines.
Dale Pekar, 1010 Rock, stated he did not like low compatibility structures in the district. He
does not want one on his block. Moderate may not be okay for him, either. He would want to
strive for high compatibility for all areas and would prefer to map the area for low compatibility.
He spoke of the cumulative effects in the district. He does not like “shoulds” in the guidelines,
would prefer “shalls”. On page 40, an example fits four of the nine for moderate compatibility.
Page 36 identifies most of nine criteria as moderate.
Becky Pekar, 1010 Rock Street, thought the new houses at 15th and Rock were outside the
district. She does not appreciate as much leeway on the design. Houses should reflect or
mirror the older styles. She would like to see a commercial area along 9th Street.
John Bush, 701 Cumberland, said that the HDC and process is a means to an end and not an
end in itself. The important end is to encourage residential use and to encourage people to
move in and participate in historic preservation. He spoke of the old guidelines that mentioned
people might be confused with the replication of historic structures. He said that was of little
consequence. He wanted people to move into the area and improve property values.
He thought the new guidelines may be more supportive in replicating historic houses. Not
impressed with creative new architecture in the historic district. That is for everywhere else, but
not in the district. He does not think the guidelines should be so strict so that they define the
results. You need a community supporting the historic district.
Kathy Wells, 1015 Scott, made four points. 1) On high, moderate, and low compatibility, have
you lost the character that defined the district? Maybe reconsider the boundaries and write an
area out of the district. 2) The text states on relocations into the district are better than
demolitions. She would rather have the word prefer instead of better. 3) On driveways, consider
sharing driveways with the neighbors. Consider adding this to the guidelines. 4) On the Rock
Street elevations graphic, one looks like a mcmansion and she does not want any mcmansions
in the area. Instead of talking scale, she proposes that no new structure be more than twice the
size of adjacent structures.
There were no other citizens to speak on the Guidelines.
Mr. Minyard went over the other parts of the guidelines per the Staff report. He spoke of
reorganization of the sections and of typos. He mentioned the relocation of houses into the
district. He spoke in detail on the proposed fencing changes with the sketch. He then went to
the change to not require a COA for the tuck-pointing of brick.
Page 14 of 15
He stated that all emails and letters had been distributed to the commissioners in the packets
and at the agenda meeting. Staff’s recommendation is to defer this item to the July 13, 2015
meeting on a month by month basis to have plenty of time to discuss this. Chair Johnson asked
if there was a final date to finish. Staff replied that there was not a set timetable.
There was a motion to defer the guidelines discussion to the July 13, 2015 agenda by
Commissioner Russell and was seconded by Commissioner Jennifer Carman. The motion
passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent
Chair Johnson thanked the citizens that came out and Phil Walker.
VI
Citizen Communication
Kathy Wells, Downtown Neighborhood Association Secretary, invited the commission to the
DNA July 4th children's bike parade. The Mounted patrol will be there and it starts at 8:30 and
she described the route.
VII. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 7:07 p.m.
Attest:
0; , r �E�q,
Chair
hltl�, J�
Secretary /Staff
Date
Date
Page 15 of 15