HDC_09 14 2015Page 1 of 11
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, September 14, 2015, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being seven (7) in number.
Members Present: Toni Johnson
BJ Bowen
Page Wilson (in at 5:10)
Jennifer Carman
Jeremiah Russell
Rebecca Pekar
Dick Kelley
Members Absent: None
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Jimmy Moses
Rhea Roberts
II. Approval of Minutes
There were slight changes to the minutes correcting spellings of the words this, that, etc. on the
first two pages of the minutes. A motion was made by Vice Chair BJ Bowen to approve the
minutes of August 10, 2015 as amended. Commissioner Jennifer Carmen seconded and the
minutes were approved with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Wilson).
Notice requirements were met on the application 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 11
DATE: September 14, 2015
APPLICANT: James Moses, Moses Tucker
ADDRESS: NEC 6th and Cumberland Streets
COA REQUEST: Install fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at Northeast corner (NEC)
6th and Cumberland Streets. The property’s legal
description is “Lot 4-6, Block 40, Original City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This lot is covered by a parking lot currently. In the 1978
survey of the area, this no buildings were on the site.
This application is to install a fence around three sides of
the Central Arkansas Water (CAW) property they use for
parking. Also, some site changes will be made, 1)
removing part of guardrail, restriping the stall lines, some
additional asphalt where guardrail was, restructuring
islands, and removing three trees.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a
search of the files.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The proposal is to add a six foot fence along three of the four property lines: along the Sixth
Street right-of way, the alley that was not already approved through the Legion Village
apartment’s project, and along the north property line. The Cumberland Street frontage will not
have a fence or gate at this time.
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. 1.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 11
The current Guidelines state the following about fences on page 58-9.:
3. Fences and Retaining Walls:
Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36”
Rear yard fencing—72”
Iron, wood, stone, or brick fences or walls that are original to the property (at least 50
years old) should be preserved. If missing, they may be reconstructed based on
physical or pictorial evidence. Sometimes a low stone or brick wall supports an iron
or wooden fence.
Fencing material should be appropriate to the style and period of the building. Cast
iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be retained and
maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic.
Fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally following property lines.
Fences with street frontage should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall. On wood
fences, pickets should be no wider than four inches (4”) and set no farther apart than
three inches (3“). The design shall be compatible with and proportionate to the
building. For larger scale properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the
Google Street View of property from the 6th and Cumberland
Intersection.
Contributing and Non-contributing map
Photo from brochure of “Classic’ style fence. Plan of fence – additional fence areas
highlighted by bold blue line.
Page 4 of 11
scale of the building and grounds.
Fences in the rear yards and those on side property lines without street frontage may
be 72’’ tall. The privacy fence should be set back from the front façade of the
structure at least halfway between the front and back walls of the main structure.
Wood board privacy fences should be made of flat boards in a single row (not
stockade or shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. Chain-link
fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible from the street,
and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant material is
recommended.
Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on
pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete are
not appropriate.
New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front yards
that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that match the
materials of the building and be consistent with historic walls in the neighborhood.
Landscaping walls should match the materials of the building and be consistent with
historic walls in the neighborhood.
The guidelines were revised in 2013 to add the sentence: “For larger scale properties, fence
heights should be appropriate to the scale of the building and grounds.” This is a three lot
parcel that is a quarter of a block. Staff does not feel that this is a larger scale property as
opposed to MacArthur Park, St. Edwards Church, Kramer School, Cumberland Towers, the
Terry Mansion or Gracie Mansion (Fowler Square).
The cover letter states: “The proposed fencing is viewed as an aesthetic improvement to the
property and is intended to match the height and style of the fencing being installed by its
neighbor to the east, ‘Legion Row Apartments’ whom also successfully applied for perimeter
fencing with the MacArthur Historic District Commission earlier this year.“
The fence along the south elevation of the Legion Village has been proposed to be reduced
since the Commission approved it. It is proposed to not a continual barrier along the property
line as before. The center section has been proposed to be moved back to the face of the
South Elevation of the Legion village
Apartments as approved.
A portion of the south elevation of the Legion
Village Apartments as approved by Staff in the
building permit review process.
Page 5 of 11
building, shortened, and has in effect, become a gate flush with the wall of the building. The
fence shown on the right above has been proposed to be about five and one half feet off the
ground. It is a four foot tall fence on top of the brick porch which sets two steps above the
sidewalk. The gate to the parking area will be six feet tall and the gates and fencing around the
dumpster will be seven feet tall according to ordinance. Thus the fencing on the Legion Village
site will not be a uniform height from the sidewalk.
The fencing associated with Legion Village that encloses the alley is for secure parking of
tenant’s vehicles with automatic entry gates. The entrances to the property are on the
Cumberland Street side. However, with no gates or fencing along Cumberland Street planned,
the fence will only serve as a cross pedestrian deterrent and as the cover letter states, “an
aesthetic improvement” to the property.
Between the Legion Village fencing and the CAW parking lot is the convenience store and the
alley. With the fencing at Legion Village being three different heights and the separation
between the fencing along 6th Street, it is less important that the fence be of uniform height.
Pedestrian circulation and the aesthetics of the property could be improved with a fence of a
shorter height than six foot.
Staff has been informed that the alley in this block is heavily traveled between the bus transit
center and the convenience store. The Legion Village project will close the alley to foot traffic
with their fencing plan. That north south traffic would then shift to the east along Rock Street or
west to the parking lot between the Paragon Building and the police building. If the pedestrian
traffic shifts west, the traffic would end up going through the parked cars of CAW and their
employees, hence, the request for the fence. The guidelines state that a three foot fence should
be installed.
Some site changes will be made as part of this application: 1) removing part of guardrail, 2)
restriping the stall lines, 3) some additional asphalt where guardrail was, 4) restructuring
islands, and 5) removing three trees. These changes are considered minor to the scope of
work. The removing of the guardrail, restructuring the islands and the additional asphalt are
under the Commissions review. The restriping of the parking stall lines and the removing of the
trees are not.
The removing of the guardrail is necessary for internal circulation in the parking lot since the
alley will not be used for an aisle after the fence is installed that is part of the Legion Village
project. The restriping is also part of the reorganization of the parking lot to allow for internal
circulation. The parking surface is asphalt now, the proposed paving and creation of islands will
result in a net gain of asphalt of a single digit percentage.
This is not a particularly large piece of property and is not the scale of property envisioned when
the Commission changed its guidelines as to fence height. With the property remaining a
parking lot for the long term, all of the fencing will be viewable to the public. The fencing will
match the Legion Village in style but not in height, since Legion Village fencing varies in height.
There is physical separation of the fencing between the properties when viewed by the public
from the 6th Street. With no gates or access controls on Cumberland Street, this will not be
secured parking for the CAW or their employee’s vehicles. Therefore, Staff believes a six foot
fence is not necessary to achieve the goals of the cover letter or this application. Staff would
propose that a four foot fence would suffice to serve the goals of the applicant.
Page 6 of 11
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Reduce the height of the proposed fence to four feet in height.
2. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: September 14, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the item. Chair Toni Johnson asked a question on
the height of the fence that was approved at Legion Village. Mr. Minyard explained the different
height of fences along 6th Street and the break in the fence with the store building and the alley.
Jimmy Moses, speaking for the applicant, spoke of the building that is occurring on the east side
of the block and the renovation of the legion building. He said that the fence was reactionary to
the pedestrian traffic today. They may come back at a later time with a request for a gate, but
not at this time. Mr. Moses said that the higher fence would help prevent people from jumping
over the fence.
Commissioner Rebecca Pekar asked if it was difficult to jump over a four foot fence. Mr. Moses
responded that it has spikes, but it was easier to jump over a four than a five foot fence.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked why when eighty foot of the border was open.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked about the future plans for the fence. Mr. Moses said that CAW
had debated the issue and is not sure if they will enclose the Cumberland side in the future. He
described the block and trying to do the right thing for the neighborhood. He described a
pedestrian problem that is not like the rest of the neighborhood.
There was a discussion on how high the fence was. Mr. Minyard described the heights of the
fences along 6th Street again for the commissioners.
Commissioner Page Wilson asked about the design of the previous fence. He stated that the
drawing from staff were small. Mr. Moses agreed with him that the fence was more aesthetic.
He asked about the design of the fence and being unable to determine it from the staff report.
There was a discussion on the submittals of the fence. Mr. Minyard stated that there were full
color copies of the fence given to the commissioners in their packets that were mailed. In the
staff report, there is a cut sheet of the fencing with the details on it. This matches the Legion
Village fence exactly. Commissioner Wilson asked if CAW was going to fence all of the
corners. Mr. Moses said that he did not know. Commissioner Wilson asked if the project went
through Subdivision Committee. Mr. Moses said no. Commissioner Wilson commented on a
Low Impact Development (LID) meeting and questioned why they did not explore any LID
strategy.
There were no citizens that wished to speak on the item.
Commissioner Wilson asked if he had a Conflict of Interest because he signs contracts with
Central Arkansas Water and currently has a contract with them. Debra Weldon asked him if he
has any financial interest in the outcome of this COA. He replied no. She responded that was
the measure.
Mr. Minyard stated the application as applied for was a six foot fence. The applicant has not
amended his application. He continued that if the motion was “as submitted”, the Commission
Page 7 of 11
was voting on a six foot fence. Chair Johnson asked if the applicant wanted to amend his
application. Mr. Moses wanted to keep a six foot fence on the application. Mr. Moses stated
that this will match the other fence on the other project.
Commissioner Russell stated that it was not a security issue, but an aesthetic issue. Four feet
is too tall in his opinion, but would go along with Staff on that recommendation. Commissioner
Russell thinks that three feet will provide a barrier to pedestrians.
Commissioner Johnson thinks that Cumberland Street will be gated at some time. Mr. Moses
stated that he cannot say whether they will do it or not. He did say that three or four feet did not
do what they wanted, but it does match the fence to the east.
Commissioner Russell commented that he thought that the items were to be reviewed as
presented, not as they might be in the future. If it is a security fence, they should have
submitted with a gate. The Commission must look at what is there. There was a discussion on
what the guidelines say and property rights.
Chair Toni Johnson noted the fence next to it almost the same height. Visually, she believes
them to be the same height. Commissioner Russell stated that they were broken up.
Commissioner Pekar asked about the security gate between the deli and the apartment
building. Mr. Minyard explained that there are two vehicular security gates on 6th Stre et for the
apartment building.
Commissioner Wilson asked if the commissioners could express their thoughts without saying
yes or no. Ms. Weldon stated that the Commission could not take a poll. Commissioner Wilson
stated that he was fine with the fence and that fences are arbitrary in their approval.
Commissioner Wilson made a motion to approve the fence as submitted. Commissioner Kelley
seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 no (Russell).
Page 8 of 11
V. Other Matters
Preservation Plan Implementation update
There is a meeting scheduled for September 23 at 9:30 to meet with Bruce Moore, City
Manager, to discuss the topics for the meeting.
Enforcement issues
Enforcement issues noted for the Commission was a sign at 506 Ferry Street that should be on
the November agenda.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff wrote a COC for the Kramer School for roofing and guttering issues . Another has been
issued at 609 Rock Street for roofing and venting in the rear half of the building.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication.
Guidelines Revision
Chair Toni Johnson asked if they were going to adjourn the meeting and reconvene in a work
session. Mr. Minyard attempted to respond.
Commissioner Page Wilson stated that he wanted to suspend the guideline revision discussion
for two months. He said that the Commission that the process was contaminated with a
predetermined outcome. He noted that Commissioner Russell was right and that if the
commission followed the guidelines, the Commission should not have supported the fence. He
states that he doesn’t really care on fences but Commissioner Jeremiah Russell’s reasoning is
sound. Commissioner Russell said that the fence is required to be reviewed.
Chair Toni Johnson said that if what they say is true, why not meet more often? Commissioner
Wilson asked said that they needed to slow down. He believes we are ignoring QQA emails,
and the Commission is creating faux architecture. Chair Johnson does not understand what
stopping two months would accomplish. Commissioner Wilson does not want to not create an
artificial record of our time. Chair Johnson stated that she understands that we need to have
these discussions. Commissioner Wilson referred to a June 9th email to ask for a walking tour
of the district. He wants to look at a historic tour of district. Chair Johnson thinks a tour would
be good, however, she don’t think that a stop for two months would be helpful.
Mr. Minyard said that there would need to be public notice of the tour. He continued that he has
spoken to Rachael Silva of AHPP concerning the tour and she is willing to give us a tour of a
portion of the district. In an earlier HDC meeting, it was discussed to wait o n the weather to be
cooler before the tour was scheduled. Chair Johnson said there was value in both the van and
walking tour.
Commissioner Wilson asked if anyone read the Key Finding report from the consultant. He
maintained that the Secretary of Interior Standards are still being referred in the Infill Guidelines.
Commissioner BJ Bowen said that the consultants work was a suggestion and that the
Commission may or may not do what was suggested. Commissioner Bowen said that different
commissioners had different agendas.
Chair Johnson asked if it was necessary to have a motion to have the tour. Mr. Minyard said
that was not necessary, Staff would arrange it. He wanted to clarify which tour and the contents
of the tour. Chair Johnson would want to have a standard tour of the area. She would request
Page 9 of 11
to have a structured tour to see the highlights. Chair Johnson requested to have Rachael Silva
schedule a tour and Commissioner Russell asked that it be the before next commission
meeting.
Rhea Roberts, QQA Director, stated that the QQA was also a resource that could be used.
Chair Johnson asked if they would be willing to help. Ms. Roberts said that they could provide
additional guidelines. Commissioner Wilson asked if she would like to speak about emulating
and imitating. Ms. Roberts stated that best practices say that you should not emulate or
recreate historic structures and generally it is considered odd. Being similar is the important
thing. She noted that in latest revision, a lot of that language has been removed. You should
review all of it and do it right.
Commissioner Wilson would suggest that we suspend discussion of guidelines for two months.
A motion was made by Commissioner Wilson to not have the discussion tonight on the
guidelines and to have a tour before the topic is discussed again. The motion failed for lack of a
second.
There was a discussion and it was announced the guideline discussion was part of this meeting
per the legal ad. There will not be a separate workshop on the guidelines.
Chair Johnson asked if there were any comments on page 29. Commissioner Russell stated
that there was a typo in the State Statute. Mr. Minyard said that he would check if he made the
mistake, but if it was a typo in the statute, it would stay as is.
Commissioner Wilson cited city ordinance 26-120(d) and stated that the ordinance needs to be
changes to reflect not using rehab rules for infill. Mr. Minyard referred him to paragraph (f)
which references new construction. After discussing proposed changes, Mr. Minyard stated that
changing the ordinance will require going to the Board of Directors and explained the time
frame. Chair Johnson stated that was not enough to go to the Board of Directors for changes.
Commissioner Dick Kelley said that page 29 should stay as it is. Commissioner Russell asked
why the state statute and city code were part of the guidelines. Mr. Minyard replied that on this
page he took out the Secretary of interior Standards and replaced them with the state statute
and city code since they give guidance as to the Commissions actions. Commissioner Wilson
asked if the city code really says “new construction” in the code. Mr. Minyard said that it did and
that the code was available online.
Commissioner Wilson asked who determined the area of influence. Ms. Weldon stated that the
Commission sets the area of influence and that it has been set at 150 feet. Commissioner
Wilson stated that he did not know that point. There was a discussion that projects need to
blend with the “existing neighborhood and area of influence”. Ms. Weldon explained that both
criteria would need to be met. The discussion of what a neighborhood was and if it needed to
be defined in the ordinance.
Chair Johnson said that she did not feel that there were enough changes to warrant going to the
Board of Directors. Commissioner Bowen and Kelley agreed.
On page 30, there was a discussion of having a photo of townhomes, but since there are no
townhomes in MacArthur Park, then a photo of a different city would be necessary.
Commissioner Wilson stated that he does not want to use the images shown and would prefer
to see more contemporary houses. Chair Johnson agreed that more contemporary houses
should be shown.
Page 10 of 11
Commissioner Pekar said that it was disturbing to her to think that the guidelines would include
a project that was borderline and it would create a slippery slope.
Commissioner Wilson stated that Commissioner Pekar’s house would not be able to be built if
the Commission had reviewed her house at the time of construction. Commissioner Pekar said
that his statement was not the point and that she was trying to maintain the character of the
neighborhood.
Mr. Minyard stated that if anyone wanted to send photos to him, he would pass them around to
other commissioners to include them in the guidelines.
There was a discussion striking the last sentences of the four types of residential structures on
page 30 and continuing to page 31. There was a show of hands and it was decided to remove
the last sentences of the paragraphs.
Chair Johnson requested pictures of new infill structures in the guidelines. Commissioner
Wilson want to use recently approved COA infill buildings and projects that have been approved
but not built.
On page 31, Commissioner Wilson stated he wanted to get rid of items 4-8 listed in the
Compatibility by Context section. Chair Johnson said no to that request. Commissioner Russell
said that any style can meet the nine design factors regardless of style. There was discussion
on removing the last sentence in the paragraph that starts “The term ‘historic precedent’”.
Commissioner Pekar stated that different members of the Commission come from different
viewpoints. Commissioner Russell stated that the bias of the Commission should be laid aside
when reviewing projects and that if the project meets the nine Design Factors that is all that
matters. He continued to say that if a project meets the massing, roof, facade, etc., that is not a
style or a period in history.
Chair Johnson acknowledged that there is a lot of animosity on the commission and she wanted
to address it at this point. She admonished the Commissioners on their behavior. She stated
that everyone cares about the neighborhood and everyone has different opinions. She
continued that this could be wonderful commission because of the different views. She believes
that it is embarrassing and rude when they speak ugly to each other and that she should not
have to say that to adults. Ms. Weldon agreed with Chair Johnson. She recommended
professional decorum for the commissioners.
Chair Johnson stated that the last line in the paragraph should stay. Chair Johnson liked having
the contributing and non-contributing map in the packet and that it could be relevant.
There was a discussion on the moving period of significance. Mr. Minyard stated that the
National Park Service was the ultimate discussion maker on this with public meetings at the
State Review Board. There was a show of hands to keep the last sentence.
Commissioner Russell spoke of the levels of compatibility that has since been stricken. He
asked if the middle sentences could be removed because it set up different levels of
compatibility for different areas. Different location in the neighborhood will have different levels
of cohesiveness of design characters and historic architectural integrity. The level of
W
cohesiveness of design character and architectural significance will determine the level of
compliance with the 9 design factors.
There was a discussion that the graphics show only replica lite buildings and not contemporary
ones. A show of hands to have different drawings in the guidelines was held. The vote failed
with 2 ayes and five noes.
Mr. Minyard made a comment that the first full paragraph on page 32 replaced text that was
struck on page 33 and 34. Mr. Minyard stated that his perceived instruction from the last
meeting was to strike them from the individual design factors and add a paragraph at that point.
It was agreed upon to remove the first full paragraph (shown in red).
Legal Action
Ms. Weldon stated for the record that Commissioner Page Wilson was appealing the latest
decision on 1011 McMath. It will be heard in Judge Alice Gray's court with Sherri Latimer, from
the City Attorney's office, handling the case for the Commission. She continued that the
attorneys will be contacting all of the commissioners with the exception of Commissioner
Wilson.
Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:58 p.m.
Attest:
r6 r� , 7,rp �
Date
Date
Page 11 of 11