HDC_12 14 2015Page 1 of 35
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, December 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 5:08)
Jennifer Carman
Jeremiah Russell
Rebecca Pekar
Dick Kelley
Members Absent: none
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Ms. Chiew Lee
Steve Branham
Jill Judy
Mark Brown
Jimmy Moses
Frank Barksdale
James Sullivan
William Wooten
Catherine Barrier
Rhea Roberts
Jamie Moses
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Vice Chair BJ Bowen to approve the minutes of October 12, 2015 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.
Chair Toni Johnson stated that there had been a request to change the order of items on the
agenda. Jimmy Moses approached the Commission and asked for his item to be moved after
the new COAs.
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 35
Commissioner Dick Kelley made a motion to waive the bylaws to move the deferred COAs
behind the new COAs. Commissioner Jennifer Carman seconded. The motion passed with a
vote of 5 ayes, 1 no (Russell) and 1 absent (Wilson). The motion passed. Debra Weldon stated
that for the record, this was a Bylaw waiver for this one agenda and was not an amendment to
the bylaws. Commissioner Russell stated that the schedule is the same every month and that
the Commission should not give preferential treatment to one applicant.
Commissioner Page Wilson entered the meeting at this time.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
Page 3 of 35
DATE: December 14, 2015
APPLICANT: Chiew Lee, Garden Home Spa
ADDRESS: 506 Ferry
COA REQUEST: Signage
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 506 Ferry. The
property’s legal description is “Part of Lot 1, Block
1, Stevenson’s addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This single family house was built in around 1890.
The 2006 survey form states: “A simple Queen
Anne style house with asymmetrical front facing
gable wing. Turned wood columns at the front
porch are typical of the style.” It is considered a
"Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park
Historic District.
This application is a result of an enforcement
action. An internally lit sign was installed above the
front windows in the gable area without a COA by
the HDC. That sign has been removed. Attempts
to contact the out of town owner via certified mail
has failed twice. The application is for a different
sign utilizing the posts in front of the house.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On November 18, 2015, a COC was issued to Chiew Lee for the replacement of a storage
building in the rear yard.
On November 15, 2015, a COC was issued to Chiew Lee for the repainting of the exterior of the
house.
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 35
Existing East elevation 12-4-15 Contributing and Non-contributing map
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The proposed freestanding sign is 47” x 32” (10.44 square feet) and will utilize the existing posts
in front of the house. These posts are visible in the photo above. The sign will be painted to
match the color of the house. It is a metal sign. The sign will be illuminated with a Hubbell
façade flood series light fixture that is approximately 9” wide, 7” tall and 7” deep mounted on the
ground.
The Guidelines state on page 63:
E. SIGNS
Signs should be subordinate to the architecture and overall character throughout the
district. Historic signs should be preserved, including “ghost” signs on the sides of
buildings.
1. Attached to Building:
Signs attached to a building should not cover or obscure architectural features. Signs
may be painted on windows, doors, or small panels at entrances or on awnings. Small
signs may be flush-mounted on a building wall; may be hung on porches between posts;
or may project from the structure. A sign on a masonry wall should be mounted in the
mortar, not the masonry.
Sign that was removed. Photo date
9-3-15
Proposed sign Proposed ground
mounted light
Page 5 of 35
2. Free-Standing:
Free-standing signs should be low, small, and constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish.
The recommended size should not exceed six square feet in area. These signs should
be located in landscaped areas. All ground mounted (free standing) signs in the UU
zoning district must be approved by the Board of Adjustment in addition to the Historic
District Commission. Examples of appropriate signs are illustrated to the right. For
signs in the R4-A district, please consult Staff for further information.
3. Materials for signs:
Materials used for signs should be traditional, such as finished wood, glass, copper, or
bronze, not plywood, plastic, unfinished wood, neon or other internally lighted materials,
or flashing lights. Materials should be compatible with the building materials.
4. Design of signs:
The design of the signs should be appropriate to the building, in size, lettering, and style.
Business logos or symbols are desirable. If several businesses share a building,
coordinate the signs. Flashing, rotating, moveable, or portable signs should not be
used.
5. Lighting of signs:
Lighting of signs should be from remote sources, preferably from the ground aimed
directly at the sign and shielded from street view. Lighting should not use visible bulbs,
internal sources or luminous paint.
This freestanding sign is larger than the recommended size of 6 square feet. It is unknown if
the finish is matte or shiny finish. This sign does utilize the existing poles.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 14, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Dick Kelley
asked what kind of metal the sign was to be made. Mr. Minyard responded. Commissioner
Becky Pekar asked where the sign was to be mounted in regards to the posts.
Ms. Chiew Lee was present to represent the Garden Spa. She stated that the sign would be on
the existing posts on the front.
Commissioner Pekar asked where the sign was going to be mounted in reference to the posts,
either between or in front of the posts. Ms. Lee responded that the sign would be mounted
between the posts.
Vice Chair BJ Bowen asked if the sign would have a shiny finish. Ms. Lee said it would not.
The colors would match the house.
Commissioner Russell commented on where to mount the sign in reference to the height of the
posts. He desired that the windows be able to be seen over the sign.
Page 6 of 35
Chair Toni Johnson asked how tall the posts were and did she choose the size of the sign
based on the post size. Ms. Lee stated she chose the sign size to fit between the existing posts
but did not know exactly how tall the post were.
Commissioner Russell made a motion to approve the sign as submitted with the lighting as
specified. Commissioner Pekar seconded and the motion was approved with 7 ayes and 0
noes.
Page 7 of 35
DATE: December 14, 2015
APPLICANT: Mark Brown and Jill Judy, Lofts at Soma, LLC
ADDRESS: 1401 Scott
COA REQUEST: Erect Fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1401 Scott. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 1R Eastside Lofts
Replat, Replat of Block 20 Original City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas." The applicants own the
classroom building at 1401 Scott Street and the
associated parking lot along 15th only. They do not own
the Auditorium building at the corner of Daisy Bates and
Cumberland nor do they own the parking lot along Daisy
Bates Drive.
This school building was built in 1904. The 2006 survey
form states: “This colonial revival school has brick veneer
and stone (cast) trim with large running bond stone base.
Classical pediment and columns decorate the building
entries.” The architect is noted as Frank Gibb. It is
considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur
Park Historic District.
This application is to erect a six foot tall steel picket fence with two automatic car gates and two
man gates of the same height to enclose the parking lot of the property.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On November 19, 2015, the Capitol Zoning District Commission approved a six foot fence along
the exterior of the parking lot with two car gates and two man gates at the interior circulation
sidewalks. This application is in the area of dual protection between the CZDC and the HDC.
On February 12, 2015, a COC was issued to Mark Brown for repair of a cheek wall and
sidewalk repair on the west side of the building.
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 8 of 35
View looking west on 15th Street Dual protection area
View looking north on Cumberland Street Contributing and Non-contributing map
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE
APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND
GUIDELINES:
This application is to erect a six foot tall steel picket
fence with two automatic car gates and two man
(pedestrian) gates of the same height to enclose the
parking lot of the property. The fence will be similar to
the Montage Plus Classic Style with 3 rails. There is
planned to be a sliding car gate at the eastern entrance
to the parking lot from Cumberland Street. The other
car gate, which will swing toward 15th Street, will be at
the western end of the lot. There will be two man
gates, one at each sidewalk.
The fence would be located behind the hedge. Without the aid of a survey, it is unsure exactly
where the property line is located. The fence would need to be placed on private property, not in
the public right of way.
On page 58, the Guidelines state:
Style of Fence proposed
Page 9 of 35
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 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. Freestanding 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 modified to acknowledge large sites with larger scale buildings. The three
story buildings, along with the auditorium, are the only two structures on this entire block. This
is not the largest building in the district, nor is it the largest parcel of land, but it is well within the
top ten in size. It is certainly the largest south of I -630. The Guidelines state: “For larger scale
properties, fence heights should be appropriate to the scale of the building and grounds.”
The height of the hedge when walking down the sidewalk is in excess of six feet tall. However,
there is a slope to the ground such that the height of the hedge when in the parking lot is less.
The hedge height along the Cumberland Street side and the east portion of the 15th Street side
is between four and a half to five feet tall when measured from the parking lot asphalt. The
western third of the 15th Street side measures a foot less in height, from three and one half to
four feet tall.
Page 10 of 35
With the height of the hedge, approximately the top 18” to 30” of the fence would be above the
top of the hedge. If walking on the adjacent sidewalk, it would be difficult to see the fence over
the hedge because of the height and width of the hedge. The fence would be visible from a
distance either walking or driving. The car gate would be clearly visible at the 15th Street
entrance, but the car gate off Cumberland may not be as visible with the landscaping and the
fact that it is perpendicular to the street. Of course, this depends on the hedge being
maintained at its current height.
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 proof that the fence will be built on private property.
2. Obtaining a fencing permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 14, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Dick Kelley was
unsure on the orientation of the parking lot. Staff and other commissioners helped orient him.
Mark Brown, the applicant, has photos that were passed around to the commissioners. He
explained where the parking lot was. He also explained why they felt they needed a six foot
fence around the parking lot. It is to fence the parking lot on the south side of the 41 unit
apartment building converted in 2001.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked what the ultimate purpose of the fence was. Mr. Brown
stated that the area was in transition and they have completed a lot of upgrades to the units.
Detail of fence and detail of car gate on right
Page 11 of 35
They need to attract upscale people to be renters to pay for the costs. To obtain the maximum
rents from the units, they feel that they need the fenced parking lots with a six-foot tall fence.
Chair Toni Johnson asked if they planned to keep and maintain the hedge. Mr. Brown said that
they will keep the hedge and have added plants it the middle to fill in gaps.
Commissioner Russell asked if it was just to enclose the parking area for automotive security.
Mr. Brown stated it was also security for people entering and exiting the building at night. He
added that the parking is on one side of the building and the back. The fence is not exactly in
the front of the building, mostly on the side and back. The fence would not obstruct the view of
the front from Scott Street. Commissioner Russell commented on the neighbors to the east
along Cumberland. Mr. Brown stated that they looked at the back of the building.
Commissioner Page Wilson stated that they see the hedge.
Mr. Brown expressed that they want cast finials instead of the pressed bar finials as described
in the brochure and amended his application.
There were no citizens that wished to speak on the application.
Commissioner Becky Pekar made a motion to approve the fence at 1401 Scott with cast finials
on top of the fence. Commissioner Jennifer Carman seconded and the motion was approved
with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 no (Russell). Commissioner Russell stated that the guidelines say
that the fence should not be more that 36” tall, the scale of the building has nothing to do with
the height of the fence, and that the hedge is temporary.
Page 12 of 35
DATE: December 14, 2015
APPLICANT: Robert Fegtly, DDF Consulting
ADDRESS: 521 & 601 Rock Street and 409 & 411 E 6th Street
COA REQUEST: Signage
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located in four separate houses
near the intersection of Rock and 6th Streets. The legal
descriptions are as follows:
521 Rock Street is Lot 6R Block 150 being a
replat of lots 5 and 6.
601 Rock Street is the West 93’ of Lots 1 & 2 and
the South 12’ of the East 50 of Lot 2 Block 151.
409 E 6th Street is the East 50’ of Lot 1 and the
North 35’ of the East 50’ of Lot 2, Block 151.
411 East 6th Street is the North 10’ of lot 10 and
all of lots 11 and 12 Block 151.
All are in the Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
The Kempner House at 521 South Rock was built around
1910. The 2006 survey form states: “Italianate style with
large roof brackets and decorative columned porch.” It is considered a "Contributing Structure"
to the MacArthur Park Historic District. It has a façade easement upon it for the structure.
The Nash House at 601 South Rock was built in 1907. The architect was Charles Thompson.
The 2006 survey form states: “A Georgian Revival subset of Colonial Revival showing extensive
dentil work and prominent gable returns at roof. Decorative ionic columns and elliptical fan light
are prominent”. It is considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic
District and was individually listed in 1982.
The Nash House at 409 E 6th Street was built in 1907. The architect was Charles Thompson.
The 2006 survey form states: “A National Register property similar to an adjacent Thompson
designed home. Large ionic (paired) columns and decorative dormer with Palladian window
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. Three.
Location of Project
Page 13 of 35
provides decoration”. It is
considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park
Historic District and was
individually listed in 1982.
The Seimer House at 411 E 6th
Street was built around 1880. The
2006 survey form states:
“Italianate style with minimal
detailing. Heavy cornice trim, tall
narrow windows with vertical
mullion, the large one story porch
with square posts and beveled and
turned detailing are expresses in
this two story structure.” It is
considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park
Historic District.
The proposal is to replace the existing signage at 5221 Rock, 409 and 411 E 6th and add a sign
at 601 Rock Street. The existing sign at 521 Rock is a monument style sign and would be
replaced with a larger monument style sign. The other three signs would be identical, with the
exception of the street address
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On June 23, 2014, at 521 Rock, a COC was issued to DDF for fencing around the generator.
On June 23, 2014 at 409 E 6th Street, a COC was issued to DDF for step repair and storm
damage to landscaping.
On June 23, 2014 at 411 E 6th Street, a COC was issued to DDF for fencing and vinyl siding
repair.
On March 21, 2013, at 521 Rock, a COC was issued to DDF for the location and installation of a
generator.
On March 4, 2011 at 409 and 411 E 6th street, a COC was issued for fencing around air-
conditioning units.
On February 22, 2008 at 601 Rock, a COC was issued to DDF for roof damage due to wind.
On October 7, 2004, at 601 Rock, a COC was approved and issued to DDF to install signage.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The proposal is to replace the existing signage at 5221 Rock, 409 and 411 E 6th and add a sign
at 601 Rock Street. The existing sign at 521 Rock is a monument style sign and would be
replaced with a larger monument style sign. The other three signs would be identical, with the
exception of the street address.
Contributing and Non-contributing map
Page 14 of 35
Proposed sign at 521 Rock Existing sign at 521 Rock
Proposed sign at 409, 411 and 601. Existing sign at 409 E 6th. Existing sign at 411 E 6th.
The guidelines state on page 58:
E. SIGNS
Signs should be subordinate to the architecture and overall character throughout the
district. Historic signs should be preserved, including “ghost” signs on the sides of
buildings.
1. Attached to Building:
Signs attached to a building should not cover or obscure architectural features. Signs
may be painted on windows, doors, or small panels at entrances or on awnings. Small
signs may be flush-mounted on a building wall; may be hung on porches between posts;
or may project from the structure. A sign on a masonry wall should be mounted in the
mortar, not the masonry.
2. Free-Standing:
Free-standing signs should be low, small, and constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish.
The recommended size should not exceed six square feet in area. These signs should
be located in landscaped areas. All ground mounted (free standing) signs in the UU
zoning district must be approved by the Board of Adjustment in addition to the Historic
Page 15 of 35
District Commission. Examples of appropriate signs are illustrated to the right. For
signs in the R4-A district, please consult Staff for further information.
3. Materials for signs:
Materials used for signs should be traditional, such as finished wood, glass, copper, or
bronze, not plywood, plastic, unfinished wood, neon or other internally lighted materials,
or flashing lights. Materials should be compatible with the building materials.
4. Design of signs:
The design of the signs should be appropriate to the building, in size, lettering, and style.
Business logos or symbols are desirable. If several businesses share a building,
coordinate the signs. Flashing, rotating, moveable, or portable signs should not be
used.
5. Lighting of signs:
Lighting of signs should be from remote sources, preferably from the ground aimed
directly at the sign and shielded from street view. Lighting should not use visible bulbs,
internal sources or luminous paint.
The sign at 521 Rock Street, the monument style sign will be placed in the same position as the
existing sign. The sign face will be made of 3/16” aluminum plate cut to the profile shape. The
address oval, accent bars and logos are also cut from 3/16” aluminum plate and adhered to the
face of the sign. The artwork on the sign is a high performance vinyl digitally printed and
adhered to the face of the sign. The sign is one sided. The sign will be welded to 2” square
aluminum tubing that is secured in concrete.
The overall height of the sign is 54”. The base of the sign is 18” tall, the body of the sign is 23”
and the cornice is an additional 11” in height. The overall width is 44”. The body of t he sign is
34” wide and the square footage of that portion is 5.43, under the recommended six square feet.
The overall size is 12.29 sf when adding the three portions together. The sign will not be
illuminated.
The pole mounted signs at 601 Rock, 409 and 411 E 6th streets will be placed in the same
position when replacing an existing sign as shown on the surveys. The pole for the sign will be
a 3” square aluminum tubing. These signs are two sided. The sign faces will be cut from 1/8”
aluminum plate and welded to a 2” x 1” channel to give the appearance that the sign is a solid 2”
thick. The oval with the street address will be a 3/16” aluminum plate that is applied to the face
of the sign. The artwork on the sign is a high performance vinyl digitally printed and adhered to
the face of the sign.
The height of the pole measures almost 90”. The sign face measures 27” x 18”, 3.375 square
feet, below the recommended six square feet. The signs will not be illuminated.
Staff spoke with Public Works Traffic division about visibility obstruction at the intersections of
streets. The sign at 521 Rock does not create a visibility obstruction because of the one way
streets. The sign at 601 may create one. This may result in the sign being moved toward the
house or the sign being installed higher on the pole. This may result in the scrollwork at the top
of the sign being modified.
Staff surveyed other signs of this type in the historic district from Capitol to 9th Street. 90” tall
was not an uncommon height. Some were taller, but most were over 8’ in height.
Page 16 of 35
Staff believes that it is important that the signs not be of a shiny finish, they should be matte.
When viewed against other signs in the area, these are of an appropriate scale.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one
phone call of a neutral nature.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
3. Obtaining a sign permit or transfer existing permit for each sign.
4. Work with Public Works Traffic Division to determine that the signage will not create a
visibility obstruction. Contact Greg Clay at 379-1811.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 14, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation.
Bob Fegtly, the applicant, stated that they were a bank consulting firm and bought the first
house in 1993. The company rebranded and the new signage will help the clients know where
to go.
Commissioner Dick Kelley asked about the sign at 521 Rock and how it was secured in the
ground. The sign will be mounted with a concrete footer.
Mr. Fegtly stated that all of the signs will have a matte finish and none will be illuminated.
There were no citizens in the room that wished to speak on the application. Mr. Minyard stated
that there was one call from a neighbor of a neutral nature.
Vice Chair BJ Bowen made a motion to approve with staff conditions. Commissioner Jeremiah
Russell seconded and the motion passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Page 17 of 35
DATE: December 14, 2015
APPLICANT: Jimmy Moses, Moses Tucker
ADDRESS: 307 and 315 East Capitol Avenue
COA REQUEST: Exterior renovations and signage
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 307 (311) and 315 East
Capitol Avenue. The property’s legal description for 307
East Capitol is The E54.46' Of Lots 1,2 & 3 Blk 40
Replatted as Lot 1r Block 40 together with 1125 sq ft
Closed Alley Lying Al Eln thereof per 2015-045361 Of
The Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas. The property’s legal description for 315 East
Capitol is The N40' Of Lot 8 & All Of Lots 9 & 10 & The
W75' Of Lots 11 & 12 Blk 40 together with 1792.5 Sq Ft
Closed Alley Lying Al Wln thereof per 2015-045361 of the
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas.
The building at 307 East Capitol is known as the Paragon
Printing building and is a contributing structure to the
district. It was built in 1947 and expanded shortly
thereafter. The survey notes “International Style with
floor to ceiling glass façade and large expanse of blank windowless walls. The building at 315
East Capitol Avenue is known as the MM Eberts American Legion Post and is not a contributing
structure in the district. It was built around 1968. The survey notes “Commercial building with
international style influences, including flat roof, simple geometric shapes and large grouped
window and door opening.”
This application is for both buildings for exterior renovations and signage. The Paragon Building
is proposed to house a German beer hall and restaurant with outdoor seating on both sides of
the building. The beer garden to the west will be 18’ wide for almost the entire length of the
building. The beer garden on the east will be the width of the alley and as deep as the
American Legion Building. The American Legion Building will be utilized as a restaurant, bar,
and boutique bowling alley.
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 18 of 35
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files on either property.
American Legion Building north elevation 2006 Paragon Building north elevation 2006
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF
THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF
INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
On page 41 of the current Guidelines, they
state:
Buildings, which are designated as
“contributing” to a National Register
Historic District, or “significant” as a
National Register Historic Place will be
held to a higher standard than “non-
contributing” structures. The HDC will
consider the designation when it
evaluates rehabilitation proposals.
On page 44 of the current Guidelines under doors, they state:
Original doors and/or their entranceway surrounds, sidelights, transoms, and
detailing should not be removed or changed. Replacement of missing original doors
should be like or very similar to the original in style, materials, glazing (g lass area),
and lights (glass pane configuration.) Doors should not be added to the primary
façade or to a secondary façade where readily visible from the street. If doors are
added to an inconspicuous secondary or rear wall, they should be similar to the
original doors.
On page 49 on the current Guidelines under Masonry, they state:
Brick should not be painted unless it is extremely mismatched from earlier alterations
or cannot withstand weather.
On page 58 of the current Guidelines under Fences, they state:
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.
Contributing and Non-contributing map
Page 19 of 35
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 scale
of the building and grounds.
On page 60 of the current Guidelines under Lighting, they state:
Original lights should be preserved. If fixtures are added, they should be from the period of
the structure, or if new, simple in design, based on traditional designs of the early
twentieth century. They should be mounted on porch ceilings or on the exterior wall
adjacent to the primary entrance. Fixtures to avoid are carriage lamps or any fixtures
evocative of a period earlier than the building.
On page 63 of the current Guidelines under signage, they state:
Signs should be subordinate to the architecture and overall character throughout the
district. Historic signs should be preserved, including “ghost” signs on the sides of
buildings.
1. Attached to Building:
Signs attached to a building should not cover or obscure architectural features. Signs
may be painted on windows, doors, or small panels at entrances or on awnings.
Small signs may be flush-mounted on a building wall; may be hung on porches
between posts; or may project from the structure. A sign on a masonry wall should
be mounted in the mortar, not the masonry.
3. Materials for signs:
Materials used for signs should be traditional, such as finished wood, glass, copper,
or bronze, not plywood, plastic, unfinished wood, neon or other internally lighted
materials, or flashing lights. Materials should be compatible with the building
materials.
4. Design of signs:
The design of the signs should be appropriate to the building, in size, lettering, and
style. Business logos or symbols are desirable. If several businesses share a
building, coordinate the signs. Flashing, rotating, moveable, or portable signs should
not be used.
5. Lighting of signs:
Lighting of signs should be from remote sources, preferably from the ground aimed
directly at the sign and shielded from street view. Lighting should not use visible
bulbs, internal sources or luminous paint.
The Guidelines do not state a size for wall signs. The UU zoning provides for Institutional and
Office zone signage regulations (36-553). That code is stated below:
Sec. 36-553 Signs permitted in institutional and office zones
(a) The following signs are permitted in institutional and office zones:
(1) All signs as permitted in sections 36-550 through 36-552.
Page 20 of 35
(2) One (1) freestanding sign per premises, not to exceed two (2) square
feet in sign area for each linear foot of main street frontage up to a
maximum of sixty-four (64) square feet. Such sign may not exceed a
height of six (6) feet. In addition to the above freestanding sign, the owner
may use one (1) of the following:
a. Wall or mansard signs not to exceed ten (10) percent in
aggregate sign area for that occupancy's facade area.
b. One (1) under-canopy or projecting sign per occupancy, not to
exceed twelve (12) square feet in sign area.
(3) Where a building is on a corner or has more than one (1) main street
frontage, one (1) wall sign and one (1) additional freestanding sign will be
allowed on the additional frontage, not to exceed the size of other wall
and freestanding signs.
(b) All freestanding, projecting, and under-canopy signs shall have a minimum
setback of five (5) feet from any property line and vehicular public right-of-way,
measured from the closest edge of the sign, and a minimum clearance of thirteen
(13) feet over any vehicular use area and nine (9) feet over any pedestrian use
area. Illumination is allowed but not greater than two hundred (200) footlamberts
of luminance.
This Staff report will be broken down into two portions, one for each of the buildings.
THE PARAGON BUILDING:
The Paragon building, at 307 East Capitol, is a two story building in the “Structural
Expressionist” architectural style. Simply stated, the structural members of the building are
expressed in the building, namely the white columns and pilasters on the front corners and
along the sides of the building. Mason Toms, Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, stated
that this building may be the work of Dietrich Neyland. Mr. Neyland was brought to Arkansas to
work in the Cromwell office in the 1950s. He liked the red with white acce nts color scheme in
his buildings. One of his works locally is the KATV building on Ringo Street. The Cromwell
archive is currently being digitized at Arkansas Studies Institute but it not available to the public
at this time to confirm if this is or is not one of his works.
The front of the building features a structural member frame in white that encases the building
on the sides and top. The structural member appears to be stucco over metal lathe and that
member extends inwards to become the soffit of the building over the entrance. The center
portion of the front façade has a third type of brick, a more decorative brick with rounded edges
that is red in color. The mortar has been dyed to match the brick. Mr. Toms stated that this
front façade brick may be a “dipped brick”, where brick was dipped in paint before installation to
achieve a uniformity in color that was unavailable from firing bricks alone. The balance of the
façade is a two story glass storefront floor to ceiling windows and one door on the east side.
The contrast of the red brick, red mortar and the white structural members provides architectural
interest in this building along with the massing of the large rectangles of glass and decorative
brick.
The side facades are broken into seven bays with the white structural members extending from
the ground to the top of the parapet wall. The eastern façade has evidence of windows that
have been bricked over. There were four large windows and one small window. There is an
existing overhead door in the sixth bay. The seven bays on the east side are not a regular width
as the bays on the west side are. The steel frame windows are still in place in the building, the
Page 21 of 35
brick was added to the exterior sill. The western façade of the building has seven bays with the
first bay closest to Capitol Avenue having some of the two story floor to ceiling glass storefront
windows.
The brick on the sides of the building are not the same as the brick on the front. Part of the
eastern wall nearest to Capitol Avenue is a buff brick that has been painted. The western wall
appears to be the same brick as the balance of the eastern wall, a smooth red brick. The wall
has been painted a similar color of red as the brick. A ghost sign appears on the western wall
but is unintelligible.
The Paragon Building Existing North Facade 2015
Page 22 of 35
The Paragon Building Proposed North Facade
The proposal for the front of the building would keep the following items:
1. The white concrete structural members would be cleaned and repainted white.
2. The existing storefront windows on the west side would be repaired as needed or replaced
to match the existing.
The proposal for the front of the building would change the following items:
3. The single aluminum
storefront door would
be replaced with two
wood doors.
4. A 2’ x 7’ stained and
painted carved wood
sign would be placed
over the new wood
doors.
5. A 12” thick wood
awning with recessed
lights in the soffit
would be added over
the front doors at the
level of the beam
between the first and
second floor.
6. The red brick panel in
the center of the
building and the brick to the east of the front door would be painted gray.
The Paragon Building Existing West Façade 2015
Page 23 of 35
7. A perforated metal screen would be added to the building in front of the brick panel. It would
be blue in color and have a diamond pattern with cutouts.
8. A sign, 3’ x 25’ would be painted on the brick, beside of the diamond screen with the words
“Fassler Hall”. This sign would be painted in white on the grey background.
9. There would be a fence added to the west side of the building placed on a wood slat base.
The fence and base would be 8’ tall. The fence would be a decorative metal fence in a mid-
century motif.
10. There would also be a gate installed in the alley on the east side of the building in the
decorative mid-century motif. It would not have a wood slat base.
The proposal for the west side of the building would keep the following items:
11. The white concrete structural members would be cleaned and repainted white.
12. The existing storefront windows on the west side would be repaired as needed or replaced
to match the existing.
The Paragon Building Proposed West Façade
The west side of the building would have the following changes.
13. The brick would be painted gray.
14. There would be a painted logo on the wall near Capitol Avenue in the first bay of 42 square
feet with the diamond blue background with a griffin.
15. Bays two, three, and four would feature glass front overhead doors centered in the bays
(number one being closest to Capitol Avenue). The doors are 10’ x 10’.
Page 24 of 35
16. A wood awning is above the
overhead doors with 8” letters
on the awning. “Sausage,
Beer, and Live Music” are
considered informational
signage per the sign
ordinance.
17. A proposed sign of 120
square feet sign (6’ x 20’) is
proposed to be painted on the
second floor of the building.
(The dimensions of this sign
are not correct, the building is
approximately 150 feet long,
the seven bays are
approximately 22 feet long
each, therefore the sign is
approximately 60 feet long
and from 6-13 feet high for an area of 540 feet.)
18. 14 new light fixtures will be installed on the building, two per bay. They will be Wheeler Dino
Wall Sconce in yellow. They are commercial grade steel with a high gloss porcelain enamel
finish. The projection from the building will be 15” or less.
19. The same decorative fence that will be on the front of the building will be extended down the
west façade to enclose the outdoor dining and drinking area.
20. The southernmost bays (five through seven) will have the diamond patterned artwork
painted on the brick.
The proposal for the east side of the building would keep the following items:
21. The white concrete structural members would be cleaned and repainted white.
The east side of the building would have the following changes:
22. The brick would be painted gray.
23. Replace the existing overhead door with a 10’ x 10’ glass overhead door.
The Paragon Building Existing East Façade 2015
The Paragon Building Proposed East Façade
Page 25 of 35
24. Install three additional 10’ x 10’ glass overhead doors in bays two, three and four (number
one being closest to Capitol Avenue.)
25. Install 13 wall sconces as described above.
26. The northernmost bays (one through three) will have the diamond patterned artwork painted
on the brick.
27. There is proposed to have a fence at the midpoint of the alley at the rear of the American
Legion Building.
The Paragon Building was deemed contributing in the last nomination of the district and it
should be held to a higher standard than non-contributing ones per the Guidelines.
Currently, the building has a single front door in an aluminum storefront system. Changing this
to two wooden doors could be reversible in the future. The large panels has four vertical panes
of glass now, replacing parts of the two center ones with doors could be appropriate for
additional entry and exit from the building. More appropriate doors would be two glass
aluminum doors that match the existing door.
In light of the additional information from AHPP, Staff is concerned on the removing or covering
of original architectural details. In this Structural Expressionist building, the three elements are
the white structural members, the rectangular masses of brick and the two-story glass storefront
windows. AHPP believes that the mortar was dyed and matched to the brick and that this front
façade brick has never been painted. Evidence of paint on the mortar joints is not there. The
guidelines state on page 49 that unpainted masonry should not be painted.
The sign on the front façade of the building could be installed as metal individual cut letters
mounted into the brick as the decorative screen is proposed to be. A different color combination
could be used if the red/blue was not found suitable. The sign is quite large and measures
differently than labeled. The zoning ordinance states that signs must be less than 10% of the
façade. This sign appears to be almost at that maximum.
On the east and west façade, it has been painted previously and further painting on these two
facades will not diminish the contributing status of the building. Cutting six additional overhead
doors into the building may make the building non-contributing in the next survey. Ralph
Wilcox, in an email date November 2, 2015, stated “I believe that if the building is renovated and
the garage doors are put into the building as proposed, that the project will make the building
non-contributing.” Mid Century modern buildings are unique to the district.
The guidelines state that fences with street frontages should be 36” tall. The requested fence is
8’ tall. Staff feels that the 8’ tall fence (wood slats and metal decorative fence combined) is too
tall to be appropriate. The Guidelines state that fences should be designed with an appropriate
style to the building and may be taller with larger scale properties. This is not a larger scale
property but the use of a beer garden may prompt a taller fence of four feet total. Other
restaurants that serve food an alcohol downtown have three foot fences.
The lighting section of the Guidelines reference buildings that were built in the early part of the
20th century or late 19th century. These mid twentieth century buildings should have appropriate
fixtures for their time frame. Staff believes that the proposed light fixtures are of an appropriate
design for the buildings.
Page 26 of 35
The sign on the front façade of the building measures almost six feet wide by twenty five feet
tall. As proposed, the painted sign would be appropriate if the painting of the brick wall behind
was appropriate. However, a metal sign with individual cut letters could be appropriate if they
were attached into the mortar and stood away from the brick surface. No mention of lighting of
the sign was made in the application.
The sign on the west wall would be appropriate for materials, but may still be oversized at
approximately 540 square feet based on the elevation provided. The size noted is incorrect. It
will need to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment since it does not have street frontage. The
logo without words on it (diamond shield with griffin) may not be considered a sign. It is 42
square feet. The sign, Fassler Hall, is a sign without street frontage. This sign will require to be
reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Sec. 36-557 (a) All on-premises wall signs must face
required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without street frontage would be the
only means of identification for a tenant.
THE MM EBERTS AMERICAN LEGION BUILDING:
The MM Eberts American Legion building is a one story brick building with an entry door and
sidelights on the eastern end of the front façade. The front façade is characterized by a raised
planter on the western end. The doorway has a ramp leading to it that is entered near the
center of the front façade and the retaining wall for the landing and an additional planter is in
line with the planter on the west. A decorative cap of brick is a decorative element on the
planter and retaining wall. This wall is roughly the height of the finished floor inside.
The MM Eberts American Legion Building is not a particularly unique building. Some buildings
are of a character that implies that they will be on the contributing list eventually, but this is
probably not the case of this building.
The American Legion Building Existing North Façade 2015
Page 27 of 35
The American Legion Proposed North Façade
The front facade of the building would have the following changes:
1. The brick would be painted gray. There will be accents of orange at the top of the planter
wall and green triangles on the western edge of the front façade.
2. The existing storefront entry would be replaced with an overhead door to fit the opening.
3. A new painted welded metal railing would be added on top of the planter wall.
4. The entry ramp would be changed in slope and direction so that the entrance would be on
the eastern edge of the building. The planter wall/retaining wall would be cut on the eastern
edge and filled in the center. The planter on the western edge would be shortened.
5. A new entrance would be cut into the wall near the western end of the building with two
wood doors installed. Doors would be 3’ x 7’ tall.
6. A 3’-0” x 9’-4” storefront window will be added to the center of the building.
7. There is to be a new awning (canopy) over the ramp to the entrance that will be 12” thick
and as wide as the distance from the building to the property line. It is to be lined with
stained wood soffit and wall paneling. The green edge is to be hard plastic and internally
lighted. The soffit is to contain recessed lighting.
8. Above the new double wood doors, an 8’-8” tall vertical wall panel will be installed with
corrugated metal face. The sides and top will be green hard plastic and internally lighted.
9. A 2’ tall corrugated parapet will be added atop the wall.
10. 3 light fixtures will be added to the front façade. They will be the same as the other building.
They will be Wheeler Dino Wall Sconce in yellow. They are commercial grade steel with a
high gloss porcelain enamel finish. The projection from the building will be 15” or less.
11. There would be four signs on the front façade. The first would be the words “Dust Bowl”
mounted upright on the fixed awning at the eastern end. In the center of the building, a 3’ x
7’ wall mounted sign will have the text “Dust Bowl lanes and lounge”. On the western edge
of the front façade, there will be a neon sign 8’ in diameter that will feature a bowling pin with
the words Dust Bowl with a circular motif behind it. The last sign is to be mounted on th e
existing flagpole that is not dimensioned.
Page 28 of 35
The west elevation is a windowless
elevation with the north portion of
the building overhanging the
foundation by about 24 inches.
Underneath the overhang are
fluorescent tube lights.
The American Legion Proposed West Façade
The west façade of the building would have the following changes:
12. The brick would be painted gray with green triangles on the north end by Capitol Avenue. A
decorative graphic (mural) of a bowling ball and pins would be on the building for the
majority of the length of the building.
13. Two glass overhead doors, 10’ x 9’-4”, would be cut into the west façade. They would have
painted welded metal railings in front of the overhead doors. (These doors are not at the
grade of the alley.)
14. Six additional wall sconces, described above, would be added to the façade.
15. The rear doors with the storefront entry would remain.
16. The graphic of the bowling ball moving toward the pin is a sign without street frontage. This
sign will require to be reviewed by the Board of Adjustment. Sec. 36-557 (a) All on-premises
wall signs must face required street frontage except in complexes where a sign without
street frontage would be the only means of identification for a tenant.
17. Drawings have not been submitted for the east or south façade of the building. It is
assumed by staff that it will be painted grey to match the remainder of the building.
The American Legion Building Existing West Façade 2015
Page 29 of 35
The MM Eberts American Legion building is non-contributing to the district as of the last
nomination.
The American Legion building was built with the one door with sidelights. The guidelines state
that additional doors should not be added to the primary façade. With this being a non-
contributing building, this could be an appropriate change.
The guidelines state that brick that has not been painted before should not be painted. This
brick appears to be able to withstand weather and is not mismatched. When the planter wall is
cut and infilled, it may not be possible to reuse the brick or match it with new brick. Later mortar
is more difficult to remove from brick in an effort to reuse them. Currently, the proposal is to
paint both buildings gray. With the Paragon building front façade recommended to be left
unpainted, and it is desired for both buildings to match, then a suggestion would be to paint the
Eberts building to match the Paragon Building. Reutilizing the existing brick to fill voids in the
planter wall would be the best solution and not requiring the brick to be painted.
There is a fence proposed to be in the former alley area between the two buildings. This would
be a gate in all probability. The guidelines state that fences with street frontages should be 36”
tall. The requested fence is 8’ tall. Staff feels that the 8’ tall fence (wood slats and metal
decorative fence combined) is too tall to be appropriate. The Guidelines state that fences
should be designed with an appropriate style to the building and may be taller wit h larger scale
properties. This is not a larger scale property but the use of a beer garden may prompt a taller
fence of four feet total. Other restaurants that serve food an alcohol downtown have three foot
fences.
The lighting section of the Guidelines reference
buildings that were built in the early part of the
20th century or late 19th century. These mid
twentieth century buildings should have
appropriate fixtures for their time frame. Staff
believes that the proposed light fixtures are of an
appropriate design for the buildings.
The proposal is for four signs on the front of the
building. From the left (east side), the first is the
2’ tall metal letters mounted to the top of the
canopy. This would be about 24 square feet. The
second is a wall sign noted to be 3’x7 but scales
approximately 16’x5' for 80 square feet. The
third, a wall sign with the bowing pin on it, is
labeled 8’ in diameter for about 70 square feet.
The last sign is on the existing flagpole.
This zoning ordinance for this UU zoned land states that freestanding signs (the sign on the
flagpole) my not to exceed six feet in height, including pole. This sign is clearly taller than six
feet. Staff feels that four signs on this façade is too much signage. Staff believes that the two
signs on opposite ends of the building (the large neon wall sign and the metal sign on top of the
canopy) would be sufficient.
Proposed Wall sconce for both buildings
Page 30 of 35
SUMMARY
In conclusion, concerning the Paragon Building, the guidelines state that Contributing buildings
will be held to a higher standard than those that are non-contributing. More appropriate doors
would be two glass aluminum doors that match the existing door although the wood doors are a
reversible change. The guidelines state that unpainted brick should not be painted. The
signage could be executed in a manner similar to the metal screen and still achieve as similar
desired look. The signage would be large, if not the largest permanent sign in the district if
approved. Cutting an additional six overhead doors into the building could make the building
non-contributing, but is a reversible alteration. The guidelines state that fences with street
frontages should be 36” tall and the requested fence is more than twice that tall.
Concerning the American Legion Building, it is a non-contributing building and is not held to the
high standard of contributing buildings. Adding additional doors could be an appropriate change
with this non-contributing status. The guidelines state that unpainted brick should not be
painted. With the Paragon building front façade recommended to be left unpainted, and it is
desired for both buildings to match, then a suggestion would be to paint the Eberts building to
match the Paragon Building. The guidelines state that fences with street frontages should be
36” tall and the requested fence is more than twice that tall. Four signs may be too many for the
building.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
5. Obtaining building permit for each property.
6. Paragon Building:
a. Do not paint brick on front (north) façade,
b. Sign on front (north) façade to be individual cut metal letters mounted into the mortar
joints.
c. Reduce size of sign on front (north) façade by 25%.
d. Reduce height of fence to 4’ including wood slats.
e. Sign on West façade to be reviewed by BOA.
3. American Legion Building
a. Reduce height of all fences to 4’.
b. Reduce number of signs to two. Remove sign on flagpole and smaller wall mounted
sign.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 14, 2015
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission about the item outlining the
recommendations and conditions. It was confirmed that the item would be broken into two parts
with each building discussed independently with a separate vote. The Paragon Building was
discussed first.
Mr. Minyard noted that there were no comments from citizens on this project. He continued and
reviewed the conditions for approval.
Commissioner Page Wilson wanted to clarify that this building had an addition to it. Mr. Minyard
stated that the addition to the building had achieved contributing status on its own merits and
that the entirety of the building was contributing.
Page 31 of 35
Chair Toni Johnson asked when Dietrich Neyland worked here. Mr. Minyard stated that he
could not state for sure. She had a question on the email from AHPP. Chair Johnson read from
the email of Ralph Wilcox that stated that the installation of the garage doors would make the
building be non-contributing to the district. His entire email was quoted in the staff report.
Commissioner Jennifer Carman questioned the staff recommendation on the f ence concerning
the height of the wood slats and metal or just the metal portion. Mr. Minyard stated that it was
the total height of the fence, including the wood that was recommended to be at 4’ tall.
There was a discussion on what would officially trigger the evaluation of the building to deem it
non-contributing, if buildings that had been modified to become non-contributing ever became
contributing again, and tax credit work that has made non-contributing buildings contributing.
Commissioner Wilson stated that being contributing is a factor and that it could be deemed
contributing again. Chair Johnson said that Ralph Wilcox is the man at AHPP that is the
National Register staff person. The determination of non-contributing status will not be
determined until another survey for the entire district is performed or until someone asked for
that specific building to be reviewed. It could be modified to a non-contributing status without
the official non-contributing status catching up with it.
Jimmy Moses, Moses Tucker Real Estate, representing the applicant, stated that he has been
working with Central Arkansas Water (CAW), the owner of the property. Capitol Avenue has
deteriorated over the years. This building has been used for storage for many years. He spoke
of a late 50’s or early 60’s addition. He stated he knew Dietrich Neyland. This building is being
developed as a companion to the American Legion building. It is oriented to a commercial
street and there are issues with the bus transfer station. They have closed the alley with CAW
approval earlier in the year. CAW is interested in making this happen, not as definite as to the
Legion Building.
Mr. Moses continued that in general they would like to try to conform to the Staff report. He did
want to discuss the side overhead doors. The east and west sides were not designed to be
seen. They probably abutted other buildings. The tenant must have openings to access the
beer garden areas.
Commissioner Becky Pekar asked about parking. Mr. Moses responded that there is no
provision for parking. She asked if they could use the CAW lot. Mr. Moses stated that it may be
an option.
Chair Johnson stated this building is not individually listed, but counts as a Contributing
structure to the district. Mr. Moses is talking about the less important elevations to the buildings.
The doors could be reversible by filling in the brick at a later date. Chair Johnson said that it
was a big step to go from Contributing to Non-Contributing. She stated her opinion that she
believes it should be non-contributing even though the paperwork may not show it immediately.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell stated that the possibility of delisting was a deal breaker for
him. But he thought it would be a significant improvement for the area. He felt that the fence
was too tall. The solid wood doors were not appropriate and adding another door was
inappropriate. He referred to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilit ation numbers 2, 4
and 9. He could support it if the building was not contributing.
Page 32 of 35
Mr. Moses stated he was generally okay with the Staff recommendations. The current structure
was a non-contributing force in the neighborhood. He is trying to add energ y and life into the
area.
Commissioner Russell asked him if he would consider deferring till next month. Mr. Moses said
yes that he would. There was a discussion and since Commissioner Russell asked for the
deferral, the bylaws state that the City will send out the notices. Mr. Minyard asked the
applicant to resubmit new drawings to send out to the commissioners. The applicant said that
they could. Commissioner Russell asked for Staff to meet with the AHPP.
Chair Johnson commented that the drawings show the beams and columns to be painted. She
did not believe that the columns, beams, or the front elevation had ever been painted. She
stated that the notes need to be pulled off for the painting the brick. She referred to the
treatment of original materials section of the Guidelines and suggested that the applicants look
at that.
James Sullivan, AMR Architects, stated that after further research, he thought three of the four
elevations had been painted.
Chair Johnson was grateful for Mr. Moses’ work downtown and that it would be an addition for
economic development. The contributing non-contributing question is a no go for her. Mr.
Sullivan suggested that all should look at the stucco columns in more detail.
Commissioner Russell made a motion to defer the item at 307 Capitol Avenue to the January
agenda. Vice Chair Bowen seconded and the motion passes with 7 ayes and 0 noes.
The review of 315 E Capitol Avenue started at this point.
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission including staff recommendations.
A letter C will need to be added to the staff recommendations to have the signage reviewed by
the BOA.
Commissioner Becky Pekar commented on the removal of the sign under the canopy and a
discussion was held on why the staff recommendation was as it is. There was a discussion on
whether a company designed flag with their logo and name was a sign or not. A question for
the Staff was if the neon sign was internally lit. Mr. Minyard stated that if the neon tubes were
exposed, it was not an internally lit sign. The green panel that is internally lit was not
considered a sign.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell stated that lighting should not use visible bulbs and quoted
from the guidelines. It should not use external bulbs. Mr. Minyard, when asked, stated that the
Staff did not feel that a neon sign would be inappropriate for this non-contributing building in the
district. He stated that the guidelines are guidelines and not the ordinance. Chair Toni Johnson
stated that a non-contributing building will be held to a lesser standard for signage.
Commissioner Page Wilson said that neon was a historic material and he has no problem with
the neon on the signage. He likes moving signs, but not LED. Chair Johnson suggested to look
at the context, the neon is not going into residential windows.
Jimmy Moses, the applicant, said that this was part of the Village at Legion Row development.
They are back for review of this property now that they have a user. It will be a retro bowling
alley with 10 lanes and a food and beverage operation. It is designed to be retro and funky.
Page 33 of 35
Hopefully there is latitude since it is non-contributing. The colors of the building are grey and
green and would like to continue the color scheme on both buildings.
Mr. Moses wants a significant fence in the alley. He does not want anyone jumping over a 3 to 4
foot tall fence. He reminded the Commission that they had approved a 6’ fence last time at the
Legion Village.
Commissioner Russell stated that this Commission does not set precedence. He asked if they
would reduce the fence to 6’. Mr. Moses said that they were trying to avoid after-hours access
to the alley area. Chair Johnson asked if Mr. Moses was officially amending his application for
six foot fence everywhere. He stated yes.
Commission Page Wilson stated that it looks like an Edward Durrell Stone midcentury fence.
James Sullivan, AMR Architects, stated that the gate would be operable with a metal fence.
The motif would be translated into metal in the same style as shown.
Commissioner Pekar commented on the signs. “Lanes and Lounge” is text found on the sign
that is being discussed to be removed. Did they want that text on another sign? It was
discussed and the sign “Dust Bowl” on the canopy will be redesigned to include that text. The
sign under the canopy will be removed.
The sign on the flag was discussed. It was planned to be a fabric flag with the logo on the
fabric. There was a discussion between Staff and the Commission on whether it constituted a
sign. Mr. Minyard stated that he would check on it and get back to them. Frank Barksdale,
AMR Architects, stated that if it was a sign, they would just fly an US flag instead.
They are asking to paint the building and keep the sign of the bowling pin.
There was no citizen comment.
Commissioner Russell made a motion to approve with the following amendments:
1. Reduce alley fence height from 8’ to 6’ in the style portrayed in metal.
2. Remove the center sign under the canopy.
3. Far left sign will add the text “Lanes and Lounge”.
4. If the flag is deemed to be a sign, they will fly another flag that is not deemed to be a
sign.
5. Have review from the BOA for the west wall sign for a sign without street frontage.
Vice Chair Bowen seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Page 34 of 35
V. Other Matters
Preservation Plan Implementation update
The group had a good meeting last month and another this upcoming Friday. The group is
talking about adding more local ordinance districts and getting more people involved in
preservation.
Enforcement issues
Staff had none to report to the Commission.
Certificates of Compliance
A spreadsheet was emailed to the Commission earlier. Mr. Minyard informed the commission
about the process of what a COC entails, site visit, preparing a draft COC form, the applicant
accepting them, etc.
Guidelines Revision
No action on this item. He spoke of a tour that is being planned in conjunction with CZDC.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked for an update on the ReLocal study. Mr. Minyard stated
that he should be getting a draft report soon and the consultant has asked to be placed on the
Board of Directors meeting.
Election of Officers
Chair Toni Johnson opened the floor for nominations for Chair.
Commissioner Becky Pekar nominated BJ Bowen for the position of Chair. Commissioner Dick
Kelley seconded.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell nominated himself to the position of Chair. Chair Toni Johnson
seconded.
Chair Johnson closed the floor for nominations.
Chair Johnson asked all those in favor of Vice Chair Bowen to be chair to raise their hands. (5
yes votes, Johnson, Bowen, Carman, Pekar, Kelley)
Chair Johnson asked all those in favor of Commissioner Russell to be chair to raise their hands.
(2 yes votes, Wilson and Russell)
Chair Toni Johnson opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair.
Commissioner Becky Pekar nominated Commissioner Russell for the position of Vice -Chair.
Commissioner Carman seconded.
Commissioner Kelley nominated Commissioner Carman to the position of Vice-Chair.
Commissioner Carman declined.
Chair Johnson closed the floor for nominations.
Chair Johnson asked all those in favor of Commissioner Russell to be chair to raise their hands.
(7 yes votes, Johnson, Bowen, Wilson, Russell, Carman, Pekar, and Kelley)
2016 Calendar
Mr. Minyard made a note of filing deadlines that changed because of holidays. Otherwise, it is
the same pattern of dates. A motion was made by Vice-Chair Bowen to approve and was
seconded by Commissioner Russell. The motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 7:26 p.m.
Attest:
Date
Date
Page 35 of 35