HDC_03 10 2014Page 1 of 40
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, March 10, 2014, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being four (4) in number.
Members Present: Toni Johnson
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
Rachelle Walsh
Members Absent: Open Position
BJ Bowen
Randy Ripley
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Robin Raveendran
Josh Malone
Ron Ross
Page Wilson
Matt Snyder
Doug Melkovitz
Ralph Wilcox, AHPP
Stephen Giles
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey to approve the minutes of February 10,
2014 as submitted. Commissioner Rachelle Walsh seconded and the minutes were approved
with a vote of 4 ayes, 2 absent (Bowen and Ripley) and 1 open position.
Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Page 2 of 40
DATE: March 10, 2014
APPLICANT: Ralph Wilcox, AHPP
ADDRESS: 5021 Maryland Avenue
REQUEST: Mary H. Matthews Lustron House
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 5021 Maryland Avenue. The property’s legal description is
“West 46.67’ of Lots 1,2 & 3, Block 10, Cunningham’s Addition to the City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. III.
Location map
Page 3 of 40
The Arkansas Historic Preservation Programs has set forth the “Arkansas Certified Local
Government Procedures.” In it, sections are titled: “Introduction”, “Eligibility for participation in
the Certified Local Government Program”, “Process for Certification of Local Governments”,
“Process for monitoring Certified Local Governments,” “Certified Local Governments
Participation in the National Register Nomination Process”, and “Transfer of funds to Certified
Local Governments.”
In Section II Eligibility for Participation in the Certified Local Government Program subsection C
Local Historic Preservation Program, II C. 2. f) states that one of the Duties of local preservation
commissions shall include:
“Reviewing all proposed National Registration nominations for properties within
the boundaries of the CLG’s jurisdiction. When a commission reviews a
nomination or other action that will impact properties which are normally
evaluated by a professional in a specific discipline, at that discipline is not
represented on the commission, the commission must seek expertise in that
discipline before rendering its decision.”
In Section V Certified Local Government participation in the national register nomination
process, sub section B Certified Local Government (CLG) involvement in the National Register
Process, the procedures state:
A. CLGs shall submit a report (available for public inspection) to the AHPP
regarding the eligibility of each property or district within its jurisdiction proposed
for nomination to the National Register.
I. The report shall include recommendations of the local preservation commission
and the chief elected official.
2. The report should concentrate on the property's eligibility under the National
Register criteria.
3. Failure to submit reports on the eligibility of properties nominated within the
jurisdiction of the CLG after the AHPP has informed the CLG of a pending
nomination will be considered during the periodic performance evaluation.
B. CLG involvement in the National Register process
I. Within 60 calendar days of receipt of the nomination, the CLG shall inform the
AHPP by submission of a report (see section V-A) as to its opinion regarding the
eligibility of the property. The CLG shall also inform the property owner(s) using
National Register criteria for evaluation, as to its opinion regarding the eligibility
of the property.
2. In the event a nomination is received by the AHPP before submission to the
CLG, the AHPP will forward a copy of the completed nomination to the CLG
within 30 calendar days of receipt.
3. If both the commission and chief elected official recommend that a property
not be nominated because it does not meet the National Register criteria for
eligibility, the CLG will so inform the property owner(s) and the State Historic.
Page 4 of 40
Preservation Officer, the property will then not be nominated unless an appeal is
filed with the SHPO in accordance with appeal procedures outlined in 36 CFR
60. Appeals must be received by the SHPO within 30 calendar days of the date
the property owner receives notification by certified mail that the property has
been determined ineligible for nomination by both the CLG and the Chief elected
official. This is in accordance with Section 101[c) 2 of the NHPA.
4. If the commission or the chief elected official of the CLG recommend that a
property should be nominated, the nomination will be scheduled for submission
to the Arkansas State Review Board. Scheduling will be in accordance with
notification time constraints as set forth in 36 CFR Part 60.
5. The Arkansas State Review Board, after considering all opinions, including
those of the commission and the chief elected official of the CLG, shall make its
recommendation to the State Historic Preservation Officer. Either the local
preservation commission or the chief elected official may appeal the SHPOs final
decision.
6. When a National Register nomination, that has been reviewed by a
commission, is submitted to the National Park Service for review and listing, all
reports or comments from the local officials will be submitted along with the
nomination.
7. The AHPP and the CLG will work together to provide ample opportunity for
public participation in the nomination of properties to the National register. All
reports submitted by the CLG to the AHPP regarding the eligibility of properties
shall include assurances of public input. The CLG shall retain a list of all persons
contacted during the evaluation period and note comments that were received. If
a public meeting was held, a list of those attending shall be included in the report.
PROPOSAL: The Commission will review the Mary H. Matthews Lustron House.
The Mary H. Matthews Lustron House is a rare example of the work of this significant company
in Arkansas, and it illustrates how Arkansas residents were also trying to grapple with the
housing shortage that was plaguing the country after World War II. The porcelain-enameled
steel Lustron House of the late 1940s was developed as a pre-fabricated house that could
hopefully be erected cheaply and quickly on its site. The Lustron House was hoped to be mass-
produced and was also hoped to be a house type that could aid in alleviating the post-World
War-II housing shortage that was a problem across the country. Although the Lustron House did
not live up to its expectations, it did influence the housing industry for decades to come by
introducing new materials to the housing market as well as introducing the feasibility of
prefabrication and mass production. Due to the fact that it is a rare surviving example of a
Lustron House in Arkansas, the Mary H. Matthews Lustron House is being nominated to the
National Register of Historic Places with statewide significance under Criterion C.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends nomination to the National Register of
Historic Places under Criterion C. It is defined as: Property embodies the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master,
Page 5 of 40
or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components lace individual distinction.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 10, 2013
Brian Minyard made a brief presentation on the application. Ralph Wilcox, of Arkansas Historic
Preservation Program, offered to answer any questions the Commission had concerning the
nomination. There have been no public comments on this application. He stated that there
were 12 Lustron houses in the state, but unsure on where they all were or if they are still
standing. Some are known to be demolished.
Commissioner Mark Brown asked about funding for restoration. Mr. Wilcox stated that there
were some available grants for non-profits and cites for rehab work.
No citizens spoke on the application.
Mr. Minyard stated that there was a tenant in the works for the building.
Commissioner Rachelle Walsh made a motion to support the nomination. Kwadjo Boaitey
seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 2 absent (Bowen and Ripley) and 1
open position.
Page 6 of 40
DATE: April 14, 2014
APPLICANT: Josh Malone
ADDRESS: 315 E 11th Street
COA REQUEST: Demolition
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 315 E 11th Street. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 12, Block 46, Original
City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This house was built around 1885. The 2006 survey
form states: “This simple gable front national folk style
house is one room wide and is similar to “shotgun” style
houses found in Southern cities.” It is considered a
"Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic
District.
This application is for Demolition of the structure as a
result of neglect of maintenance.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On June 7, 2000, a Memorandum was signed to approve
for interior and exterior repairs including a new roof.
On July 11, 1991, a COA was denied from Jolie Giroir to
demolish the building.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The Guidelines state on page 65:
“Demolition of significant buildings, which contribute to the historic or
architectural integrity of an historic district, should not occur. The loss of a
“contributing” historic building diminishes the overall character of the district and
could jeopardize the National Register Historic District status. Demolition by
neglect occurs when routine maintenance procedures are not followed, allowing
damage from weather, water, insects or animals. Proper routine maintenance
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 7 of 40
and/or rehabilitation are strongly recommended.
“Care should be taken when reviewing for an application for demolition of a
structure that was not 50 years old at the time of the survey, but are now or close
to 50 years old at the time of application. If the district was resurveyed, these
buildings may be contributing, but may not be contributing. These applications
should be taken on a case by case basis and carefully examine the architecture
of the individual building as well as their context within the district.
“Under certain conditions, however, demolition permits may be granted by the
Historic District Commission:
1. The public safety and welfare requires the removal of the building, as
determined by the building or code inspector and concurring reports
commissioned by and acceptable to the LRHDC from a structural engineer,
architect, or other person expert in historic preservation.
2. Rehabilitation or relocation is impossible due to severe structural instability or
irreparable deterioration of a building.
3. Extreme hardship has been demonstrated, proven, and accepted by the
LRHDC. Economic hardship relates to the value and potential return of the
property, not to the financial status of the property owner.
4. The building has lost its original architectural integrity and no longer
contributes to the district.
5. No other reasonable alternative is feasible, including relocation of the building.
Demolition of secondary buildings (garages, sheds, etc.) may be appropriate if
they have substantially deteriorated (requiring 50% or more replacement of
exterior siding, roof rafters, surface materials, and structural members.)
Josh Malone, the applicant, has owned the property since December 2003 according to the
Pulaski County Assessor’s office. At the time of purchase, the house was in better condition
than it is now as was able to be repaired. In mid-2004, the applicant appeared before the
Planning Commission to divide the lot into two parcels. From the Planning Commission Staff
report; “The further intent is to renovate the single family dwelling to allow the unit to become
functional once again. The applicant has indicated this would not be suitable if the two
continued to share a lot.” The applicant, Mr. Malone, received his zoning change and
permission to split the lot into two lots. He did not however, do the required improvements to
the sewer infrastructure to have the LR Wastewater to sign off on the lot split, so the lot remains
one lot to this day.
Staff did refer him to AHPP to discuss state and federal income tax credits after the passage of
the state credit in 2009. The applicant did meet with the AHPP staff but did not pursue
restoration of the building.
This structure has been on the Unsafe/Vacant List since February 2005 and has been allowed
to deteriorate since that point. Staff believes that this structure is beyond renovation without
extraordinary means. The property could have been renovated even up till 2007 or later as the
photos below show.
Page 8 of 40
The Guidelines set forth five criteria listed above. This property conforms to the three of the
criteria: #1 - public safety and welfare, #2 - rehabilitation and relocation is unfeasible, and #5 -
no other reasonable alternative is feasible.
North 11th street façade ca. 1988 from survey
North 11th street façade ca. 1991 South façade ca. 1991
North 11th street façade ca. 2007 from survey East façade ca. 2007 from survey
Page 9 of 40
North 11th street façade December 2103 East façade December 2013
East façade December 2013 West Façade December 2013
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were two
phone calls concerning the application, one in favor of the demolition and one neutral.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a demolition permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 10, 2013
Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked about the amount of money to rehab the structure. Mr.
Minyard stated that the applicant provides that information. Mr. Minyard provided examples of
the building that show that it is beyond the point of repair.
Vice-Chair Toni Johnson asked the applicant to tell the Commission when he bought the
property and to give a background of the project. He said that there was a hole in the roof and
part of the floor was missing when he bought it. He said that over the years he has had
contractors look at the structure to rehab it. He continued that he recently met with Planning
Staff and Housing and Neighborhood Programs Staff about either rehabbing or demolishing the
house. He stated that he had talked to Roger McCoy but Mr. McCoy did not give him any
documentation about how much it would cost to rehab the project. He did not say that it could
not be rehabbed, but it would require tearing most of it down to build the rest back. He said that
his long term plan was some parking off the alley.
Page 10 of 40
Vice-Chair Johnson asked what his intentions were for the property in 2003 when he bought the
property. He said that he had originally planned to renovate for a single family residence. He
said that a new sewer main (a requirement of the subdivision of the lot into two lots) was cost
prohibitive - $15,000. Vice-Chair Johnson said that they hate to see the neighborhood losing a
historic structure. Mr. Malone said that he had made efforts to renovate it. She asked why he
did not sell it. He said that he could not split the lot to sell it because of the high cost of the
sewer main – a requirement of the subdivision. Mr. Minyard explained the issue of sewer lines
running across other people’s property and sewer mains on the request of Vice-Chair Johnson.
Commissioner Rachelle Walsh asked if he pursued tax credits on the structure. Mr. Malone
stated that he knew of them, but did not pursue them.
No citizens came forth to speak for or against the application.
Before that motion was made, Mr. Minyard stated that with only four members present, the
applicant had to get all of the votes present in favor of his application. He accepted the offer to
defer his application to the next meeting. Mr. Minyard stated that the City would mail the
notices for the deferral and that the deferral would not count against him. A motion to defer to
the April 2104 meeting was made by Commissioner Walsh and seconded by Commissioner
Boaitey. The motion passed with a voter of 4 ayes, 2 absent (Bowen and Ripley) and 1 open
position.
Page 11 of 40
DATE: March 10, 2014
APPLICANT: Ron Ross, Department of Parks and Recreation
ADDRESS: 503 E 9th Street
COA REQUEST: Fencing along McMath
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 503 East 9th Street.
The property’s legal description is “That part NW lying E
of Quapaw Line W of McAlmont Street & North of E 13th
Street in Township 1N, Range 12 W Sections 2 and 11,
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
The Arsenal Building was built in the 1840’s and is a
national landmark, the highest recognition of a historic
building. The structure is a contributing structure in the
district.
This application is for fencing along McMath Boulevard.
The fence will be a 48” steel fence with 3” square posts.
This includes removal of the existing brick and the iron
fence along Ninth Street.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On December 10, 2012, an application for a fence was
reviewed by the HDC as part of another application but
was withdrawn at that hearing.
On December 10, 2012, a COA was approved for multiple signs to be installed in the park.
On March 12, 2012, a COA was approved for a sign at the Firehouse Hostel and Museum.
On January 31, 2011, A COA was approved for two new signs for the MacArthur Museum of
Arkansas Military History and for a directional sign for the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas
Military History and the Arkansas Korean War Veterans Memorial.
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 12 of 40
On September 13, 2010, a COA was issued for a new park sign for the identification of the park
to be located near the intersection of Sherman and 9th Street.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The Guidelines state on pages 58-60:
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. 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.
This application will be required to go to the LR Parks Board for approval in addition to the HDC.
The fence’s purpose is to partially enclose the playground area of the park, which is used by
park patrons and St. Edwards School on a regular basis. The existing fence was partially
dismantled for the construction of McMath Boulevard. The section along McMath has been
taken down, but the section along Ninth Street is still in place. The existing fence has brick
panels with iron fencing with a curve set into the brick. The brick sections are 40” tall and the
iron sections are approximately 45” tall. The existing brick and iron fence will be removed. The
Page 13 of 40
new fence is to be constructed in a giant ‘u’ shape with the majority of the fence along McMath
Boulevard.
The proposal is to fence a line along 9th, 10th and McMath Boulevard with the steel fence to
serve the same function as the previous brick and iron fence served. The fence will be start
near the crescent drive, swing an arc toward Ninth Street and then parallels McMath towards
10th Street. At 10th Street, there will be a 35’ radius before the 40’ section of fence that
parallels 10th Street 30’ off the north curb. The brick and iron fence along 9th street will be
removed. On McMath, it will be 15’ off the sidewalk. The proposed fence is 4’ tall as stated on
the drawings. The fence will have 3” square intermediate posts between the sections.
According to the plans, the ground is sloped up to the south end of the area about two feet in
height. The applicant has stated that the fence will stair-step up the slope without a masonry
wall under the fence.
There have been fences along Ninth Street at the Arsenal before. The photo to the right shows
one circa 1900 at the west entrance of Ninth and Crescent Drive. The fence that is to be
proposed is not a recreation of this fence, but a modern fence as shown in the photo on the left.
The Guidelines were reviewed and updated concerning fencing heights and institutional uses.
The July 2013 revision added the text: “For larger scale properties, fence heights should be
appropriate to the scale of the buildings and grounds.” A 48” tall fence is an appropriate scale
to the 40 plus acres that encompasses the MacArthur Park and its uses. For a fence on a slope
without a masonry base, it is important for the fence to follow the slope without the bottom of the
fence being buried in the soil or providing too much of a gap between the bottom of the fence
and the ground beneath. For that reason, it would be desired to have the maximum height of
any portion of the fence to be 54” above the existing grade.
Proposed steel fence to be installed. Fence at the west end of Crescent Drive and Ninth ca.
1900
Page 14 of 40
Crescent Drive frontage of existing fencing to be
removed (2010 photo)
Detail of existing iron fence to be removed
View towards 9th Street with 40” tall brick panels
(2010 photo).
View towards 9th Street
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
2. Obtaining a building permit.
3. The maximum height of any portion of the fence to be 54” above the existing grade to
allow for grade changes.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 10, 2013
Ron Ross said that he would like to go ahead and hear the item after being offered the deferral.
Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item. He mentioned that the QQA had supported the
application and suggested that the fence portions be made available to the general public for
their use.
Vice-Chair Toni Johnson asked about the height issues of staff recommendation of less than
54” and the stair step of the fence. Mr. Minyard said the Mr. Ross would respond to that and
then described the location of the fence in detail. Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked about
the location of the fence. Mr. Minyard said the location was similar but farther away from 9th
Street.
Page 15 of 40
Ron Ross, Parks and Recreations, stated that he felt comfortable with the layout to enclose the
play area. It is designed to work with future walkways in the park. The stepping of the fence
because of grade can be worked out and made attractive with shrubberies. He stated that they
were okay with the recommendations.
Vice-Chair Johnson asked if the panels were curved or flat. Mr. Ross said that it would be a
segmented arc. She then asked about gates. Mr. Ross said that it was a continuous barrier to
the street. The barrier is more visual, since it is open on one side to the west.
Commissioner Boaitey remembered the earlier application and the discussion of barrier free
design as it related to the master plan. He asked what the change of the thought process
between then and now was. Mr. Ross responded the fence got shorter; the exposed pickets on
the top were removed; and they had waited on the guidelines revision before they applied again.
He felt that the four foot tall fence worked well with the site.
Commissioner Rachelle Walsh asked about the timeline for the installation. Mr. Ross said that
funding was not totally in place yet, but it should be this year. She then asked what was going
to happen to the old fence. Mr. Ross stated that they do not initially have a plan for it. Parks
and Recreation sometimes keep a bit too much stuff. He will ask in-house before giving it away.
There were no citizens speaking for or against this item.
Commissioner Rachelle Walsh made a motion to approve the fence with Staff
recommendations. Kwadjo Boaitey seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 2
absent (Bowen and Ripley) and 1 open position.
Page 16 of 40
Reconsideration of an item at 1001-1007 McMath Avenue:
Brian Minyard stated that there is not a formal staff report for the consideration. The applicant
has made a significant change to the exterior siding material on all three floors. The question
was raised of the Debra Weldon, City attorney’s office, as to whether the offer to defer be
tendered before the motion to reconsider or before the item itself since there are only four
people present. Ms. Weldon said that it should be before the motion to reconsider. Mr. Wilson
responded that he wanted to go forward.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey made a motion to reconsider the application at 1001-1007
McMath Avenue and the motion was seconded by Rachelle Walsh. The motion passed with a
vote of 4 ayes, 2 absent (Bowen and Ripley) and 1 open position.
Page 17 of 40
DATE: March 10, 2014
APPLICANT: Page Wilson, Paul Page Dwellings
ADDRESS: 1001-1007 McMath
COA REQUEST: 3 Story Mixed Use Development
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1001-1007 McMath
Avenue. The property’s legal description is “Lot 10, 11,
and 12, Block 5, Masonic addition to the City of Little
Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This application is for a 3-story Mixed Use Development.
The first building will be at the corner of 10th and McMath
with additional buildings to follow in subsequent COAs.
The first floor will be commercial and the second and third
floor will be residential.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On February 10, 2014, the HDC denied an application on
this site for a three story mixed use building. This
application is a variation on that application.
On December 9, 2013, the HDC denied an application on
this site for a three story mixed use building.
The Sanborn maps below show what two previous structures have been on this site. In the
1897 Sanborn, there was a small dwelling at the corner of 10th and McAlmont (later renamed
McMath). It was a one story frame dwelling with a composition roof and two outbuildings.
On the 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps, the property is shown with a large two story
frame dwelling with a slate or metal roof. Note that these are fire insurance maps and the issue
was fire safety and slate or metal was categorized as the same in fire retardants standards. A
large wrap around porch faced McMath and 10th and had a metal or slate roof also. A one
story addition on the rear had a composition roof as did the ‘Auto House” in the rear that fronted
on the 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. Three.
Location of Project
Page 18 of 40
Sometime after the 1950 map, the home was demolished and was still shown as vacant in the
1978 survey. It has been vacant since.
This area has a mixture of Contributing and Non-contributing properties. The building that
houses the Bowen Law School as well as the house at 1007 McMath are contributing. After the
nomination update later this year, it is expected that the house at 923 McMath will also be
contributing. The other seven buildings on this side of the park are non-contributing. Although
a case could be made for the Waffle House and Pizza Hut to be listed as contributing because
of the iconic franchise architecture that is typical of those two restaurant chains.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
On December 9, 2013 and February 10, 2014, the HDC denied an application on this site for a
three story mixed use building. This application is a variation on the last application.
This application was reviewed by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2014 but will not be
sent to the Board of Directors for their approval until the HDC approves the plan.
The cover letter states: “To address the concerns of the commissioners, we are changing
the exterior of the second and third floor to lap Hardie Board. The roof we propose is the
amended parapet roof that was shown in a rendering at the February 10th meeting. We
also will be changing the Hardie Board Reveal Panels to Brick.”
Authority of the Little Rock Historic District Commission is authorized by the following:
Text of the Arkansas state statute:
14-172-208. Certificate of appropriateness required - Definition.
1897 Sanborn Map (site is on upper left) 1913, 1939 and 1939-1950 Sanborn maps
Page 19 of 40
(a)(1) No building or structure,
including stone walls, fences, light
fixtures, steps, and paving or
other appurtenant fixtures, shall
be erected, altered, restored,
moved, or demolished within an
historic district until after an
application for a certificate of
appropriateness as to exterior
architectural features has been
submitted to and approved by the
historic district commission. The
municipality or county shall
require a certificate of
appropriateness to be issued by
the commission prior to the
issuance of a building permit or
other permit granted for purposes
of constructing or altering
structures. A certificate of
appropriateness shall be required
whether or not a building permit is
required.
(2) For purposes of this
subchapter, "exterior architectural
features" shall include the
architectural style, general design, and general arrangement of the exterior of
a structure, including the kind and texture of the building material and the type
and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and other appurtenant
fixtures.
(b) The style, material, size, and location of outdoor advertising signs and bill
posters within an historic district shall also be under the control of the commission.
The city ordinance states in Sec 23-115. – Certificate of appropriateness required.
Sec. 23-115. Certificate of appropriateness required.
No building or structure, including stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps and paving
or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored, moved, or
demolished within the historic district created by this division until after an application
for a certificate of appropriateness as to the exterior architectural changes has been
submitted to and approved by the historic district commission. A certificate of
appropriateness shall have been issued by the commission prior to the issuance of a
building permit or other permit granted for purposes of constructing or altering
structures.
Sec. 23-119. Prohibited considerations.
In its deliberations under this article, the commission shall not consider interior
arrangement or use and shall take no action hereunder except for the purpose of
preventing the construction, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, moving or
demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures, in the district, which are
Location of Proposed Building
Page 20 of 40
deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic aspects of
the district.
The Little Rock City ordinance further states what criteria that new construction shall be
reviewed:
Sec 23-120. – General Criteria
(f) Generally, new construction shall be judged on its ability to blend with the
existing neighborhood and area of influence. The commission shall consider, but not
be limited to the factors listed for alterations in paragraph [subsection] (d).
(d) When evaluating the general compatibility of alterations to the exterior of any
building in the historic district, the
commission shall consider, but not be
limited to, the following factors within
the building's area of influence:
(1) Siting.
(2) Height.
(3) Proportion.
(4) Rhythm.
(5) Roof area.
(6) Entrance area.
(7) Wall areas.
(8) Detailing.
(9) Facade.
(10) Scale.
(11) Massing.
The guidelines state on page 71 under Section VII. Guidelines for Commercial Structures:
C. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES
New…construction… shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and
architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its
environment. (Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9)
Construction of new commercial buildings should follow the basic guidelines
established in Section V: Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and
Detached New Construction. Of particular concern to commercial infill are the
building orientation (aligning the storefront with neighboring structures); building
mass, scale, and form; placement of entrances and windows, and building materials.
All should be compatible with the commercial neighborhood.
The commercial guidelines were included as a reference since the building is part commercial
and part residential.
The guidelines state on page 53 under Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and
Additions and Detached New Construction:
B. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF PRIMARY AND SECONDARY BUILDINGS
…related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the
property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible
with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the historic
integrity of the property and its environment.
Site
Page 21 of 40
(Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #9)
…related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in
the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment
would be unimpaired.
(Secretary of the Interior’s Standard #10)
New construction of primary and secondary buildings should maintain, not disrupt,
the existing pattern of surrounding historic buildings in the neighborhood. Although
they should blend with adjacent buildings, they should not be too imitative of historic
styles so that they may be distinguished from historic buildings. (Note: A new
building becomes too imitative through application of historic architectural decoration,
such as gingerbread, vergeboards, dentils, fish-scale shingles, etc. These kinds of
details are rarely successful on a new building. They fail to be accurate, usually too
small and disproportionate versions of authentic ones, and should be avoided.)
New construction of secondary structures, such as garages or other outbuildings,
should be smaller in scale than the primary building; should be simple in design but
reflect the general character of the primary building; should be located as traditional
for the neighborhood (near the alley instead of close to or attached to the primary
structure); and should be compatible in design, form, materials, and roof shape.
1. Building Orientation:
The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.
2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the
area. This includes height and width.
3. Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
Page 22 of 40
The MacArthur Park Historic District Guidelines for Rehabilitation and New Construction are in
keeping with the criteria set forth in the state statute and city ordinance as to what can be
reviewed in an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new construction.
The statute and ordinance require the Commission to evaluate new construction based on the
following criteria:
• Architectural style
• General design
• General arrangement of the exterior of a structure, including the kind and texture of the
building material and the type and style of all windows, doors, light fixtures, signs, and
other appurtenant fixtures
• Siting
• Height
• Proportion
• Rhythm
• Roof area
• Entrance area
• Wall areas
• Detailing
• Facade
• Scale
• Massing
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
The architectural style is contemporary.
GENERAL DESIGN
The Guidelines state on page 55:
3. Building Form
Basic building forms and roof shapes, including pitch, which match those used
historically in the area should be used. Location and proportions of entrances,
windows, divisional bays, and porches are important. Also consider heights
(foundation, floor-to-ceiling, porch height and depth.)
This application is for a three story building to be located at the corner of 10th and McMath
Streets. The bottom floor will house commercial uses and feature inset porches on the east
and west side of the building. There are more buildings to be built on this site. Each of these
buildings will be reviewed by the Historic District Commission before they are constructed. The
Planning Commission has reviewed the site for a Planned Commercial Development (PCD) for
the multiple buildings on one parcel. This item will be held from going to the Board of Directors
for the zoning change until the HDC has approved the first building.
MacArthur Park has few commercial structures in the district. There is a concentration of
commercial buildings along Capitol Avenue in the 300 block; one at 614 E 6th; some in the 200
and 400 block of E 9th Street; and one at the corner of 11th and Cumberland. Little Rock, in
earlier development history, had scattered small nodes of commercial in residential areas.
Scattered commercial buildings from that period still dot the landscape in many parts of town.
Page 23 of 40
There are commercial and institutional buildings on that side of the park from 9th to 630.
Currently to the north of the site, there are two restaurants (in prototype chain fast food
architecture) and a gas station/convenience store in addition to a single family house and three
apartment buildings. With the mix of those building and the few single family houses and
apartments, the three-story mixed use building is appropriate.
GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF THE EXTERIOR OF A STRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE
KIND AND TEXTURE OF THE BUILDING MATERIAL AND THE TYPE AND STYLE OF ALL
WINDOWS, DOORS, LIGHT FIXTURES, SIGNS, AND OTHER APPURTENANT FIXTURES
The Guidelines state on page 55:
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
The cover letter states: “To address the concerns of the commissioners, we are changing the
exterior of the second and third floor to lap Hardie Board. The roof we propose is the amended
parapet roof that was shown in a rendering at the February 10th meeting. We also will be
changing the Hardie Board Reveal Panels to Brick.” If the drawings are scaled, the reveal of the
siding is approximately 10”. The website for James Hardie products is
http://www.jameshardie.com/developer/products.shtml. However, the drawing submitted by the
applicant still notes “Pre-finished metal siding: McElroy “Multi-Cor” or equivalent.” This is in
conflict with the cover letter. There are accent panels on the second and third floor that are of
“Painted Fiber Cement Board Accent Color Panels: James Hardie Reveal Panel”.
The windows on the west side are a combination of two 3’x5’ single pane vertical windows, one
with a 3’x1’-6” horizontal single pane windows attached as a transom. There is a set of three
ganged windows with 3’x2’ and 2’x2 sizes’. There are also two additional 3’x1’-6” windows.
Between the two larger windows, there is a painted accent color panel of Hardie board as well
as one on the west side of the building under a floating window that is part of the signage. The
windows are in a non-symmetrical arrangement on the wall. The windows are specified as
Anderson “100 Series” “Eagle” or equivalent. Here is a link:
http://www.eaglewindow.com/_Products/Overview.aspx
The “windows” on the ground floor are one 3’-4” by 10’ aluminum storefront window. The link:
http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/catalog/pdf/Storefront_Framing/07_TrifabVG.p
df. Also on that ground floor elevation is one 7’x10’ twin wall polycarbonate wall panels. This
will provide translucent illumination into the interior space. The color of the material comes in
clear, white or bronze. No color was specified. The link is here:
http://www.eplastics.com/Lexan_Thermoclear_Polycarbonate_Polygal_Multiwall_Sheet For
purposes of this report, the “twin wall polycarbonate wall panels” will be referred to as windows
for the sense that they permit light to permeate the interior spaces of the building and at night,
Page 24 of 40
will allow interior light to be seen by persons that are exterior to the building. The function of
allowing light to permeate back and forth is a main function of a window.
The entry door is specified as a solid “flush” (custom) door.
The north side of the building features a more symmetrical arrangement of windows on the
upper floors with ganged and single windows of sixteen vertical 3’x5’ single pane windows, four
2’x5’ vertical single pane and six scattered 3’x2’ horizontal windows above the larger windows,
sometimes ganged and sometimes not. There are also two 3’-0” square windows and three 2’-
x1’-4” rectangular windows. One additional 3’x8” vertical window is near the center of the
building with one 3’x1’-4” window ganged below. There is a painted metal accent panel between
two of the vertical windows near the center of the building. The windows listed above are the
Anderson or equivalent windows.
Also on the north façade, there are also aluminum store front windows in a vertical line
connected by painted accent color panels in the center of the building that connects the first,
second and third floors. There appears to be five windows of varying heights with a uniform
width of 1’-4”. The first floor is a combination of twin wall polycarbonate windows and storefront
windows. Five windows are ganged with alternating storefront and polycarbonate panels (one
each of polycarbonate in 6’x6’ and 3’x6’ and three 3’x6’ aluminum store front windows. At the
west end of the façade, there are and aluminum store front windows (one 2’x8’, and one 5’-
6”x12’.) and an additional area of polycarbonate is 7’-8”x8’.
The east side features two 3’x5’ vertical single pane windows and one 3’x1’-6” horizontal
windows attached to a larger window. There is also one 3’x2’ horizontal window beside a
painted metal accent panel. The first floor features one aluminum storefront window of 3’x8’
unless it is required by code to convert that into a doorway. If it is required to have a door, it
would be a Kawneer 350 storefront door as the front. There is also one aluminum storefront
door and window on the southeast corner measuring 3’x7’ for the door and 2’-8”x8 for the
window. The door to that is specified is a Kawneer 350 aluminum storefront entry. The link:
http://www.kawneer.com/kawneer/north_america/catalog/pdf/Entrances_Swing/07_190_350_50
0.pdf
The south side of the building is comprised of eighteen horizontal 3’x2’” windows, one 2’x2’
square windows, and four 2’x5’ vertical single pane windows. In addition, on the ground floor,
there is one 7’6”x2’ window on the western half of the building on the ground floor. In the center
of the façade, there is a larger twin-wall polycarbonate window that is 8’-0” wide that has two
windows floating in the space and an entry door with transom at the first floor level. The glass
windows are 3’x5’ and 1’-6”x3’. The door is 3’x7’ with a transom of 3’x2’ above. The last
windows on the first floor are three 3’x1’-6” and one that is 2’x8’ in storefront aluminium.
This façade also features four “factory finished exhaust louvers” of approximately 3’ square. It is
unknown what those louvers are made of or what they look like.
Typically the bulk of historic windows on a structure are vertical in orientation, not horizontal slits
in the wall plane. The window size and placement is not appropriate with the district, most
notably the horizontal windows on the south, east, and west facades, polycarbonate windows,
and the multi-floor polycarbonate window on the south façade.
Page 25 of 40
There are also painted accent color panels of contrasting colors on the walls. This is described
as Painted Fiber Cement Board Accent Color Panels: James Hardie Reveal Panel”. This
material will provide a flat panel of color on the facades.
Brick masonry is specified on the first level of the building. No size or color is specified.
The building materials specified for this project are appropriate for the district. Our oldest
commercial buildings in the district have been historically faced in brick. Later one story
commercial buildings in the 1950’s and 60’s were made of block (9th and Rock and 614 E 6th).
The building at 9th and Rock, which had part of the building removed for the liquor store drive
thru, was faced in brick to blend with the existing neighboring buildings even before the district
was initiated. While most commercial buildings in the district have been historically faced in
brick or masonry, this can be viewed as a modern interpretation of the commercial building
using materials that are similar to ones used historically in the district.
Signage:
There are two signs for tenants on the north side of the building under the porch facing north. It
is shown on the plans that it will be painted or vinyl graphic mounted on the window glass. The
area specified for the signage is about 5’-6” wide and 10’ tall. There is another tenant sign on
the north façade of the building. It is approximately 3’ tall and 7’ wide. As the tenants may
change over time, it is Staff’s opinion that the Commission approve a location and maximum
size for the sign as stated above and allow the change in text to occur without further COA
solely for a change in sign text.
The street numbers are larger than typical in the historic district. They border on signage instead
of building identification as other street numbers do. The view that is shown in the west
elevation will only occur when one is standing in a particular location because the lower part of
the sign is 10 feet inset on the back of the porch and the top part is at the front of the building.
SITING
1. Building Orientation:
The façade of the new building should be aligned with the established setbacks of
the area. Side and rear setbacks common to the neighborhood should be upheld.
The setback of the proposed building along McMath is 9’-4” off the property line and 5’-0” off
10th street property line. Add approximately 2’-6” to the inside edge of the sidewalk for the
location of the both wall. This building will sit closer to McMath than the Bylites building at 11th
and McMath and the gas station convenience store at 9th and McMath. None of the current
buildings are built to the property line. The setback along McMath is appropriate with the
immediate area.
Sec. 23-115 of the city ordinance states “No building or structure, including stone walls, fences,
light fixtures, steps and paving or other appurtenant fixtures shall be erected, altered, restored,
moved, or demolished…” The ordinance states that “all stone walls, fences, light fixtures, steps
and paving” shall be reviewed.
The Guidelines on page 61 state:
PARKING AREAS, DRIVEWAYS, CURB CUTS AND PAVING:
Accommodations for automobiles should be as unobtrusive to the historic neighborhood
as possible.
Page 26 of 40
1. Residential Parking:
Parking areas and garages for houses should be located in the rear of the house, with
entrance from an alley or from a side driveway. Parking should not be in the front yard.
Original designs, materials, and placement of driveways should be preserved. If the
driveway must lead from the street through a side yard to parking in the rear, brick or
concrete tracks or narrow strips are recommended, with grass or ground cover filling the
median. Side or rear driveways should be gravel or smooth concrete, not asphalt,
aggregate, or brick
2. Commercial, Office, and Institutional Parking: When houses or buildings are used for
commercial, office, school, church, apartments, or other institutional use, parking should
be located in rear yards. If this is not possible, parking may be in a side yard but located
to the rear of the front wall of the structure. Fencing or shrubbery should screen the
parking area. Parking lots between buildings should align edge screening with the front
façades of adjacent buildings and the side property lines. Parking areas should be
surfaced with gravel or concrete, not asphalt, aggregate, or brick. For security lighting,
please refer to Lighting on the previous page.
3. Curb Cuts:
Curb cuts should be avoided unless necessary to access new parking areas. The new
curbing should be constructed to match the historic or traditional curb cuts in the district
in size, color, materials, and configuration.
Paving:
The plans show four parking spaces on the south side of the historic house off a ribbon
driveway. The driveway is comprised of 2’-4”’ wide concrete ribbons for the wheels and a 2’-4”’
wide grass strip in the center. Staff did research earlier for ribbon drives and found that the
drive specified is similar to the average drive surveyed. There are also four spaces with 90°
parking of the alley with a two foot concrete apron separating the alley from the gravel parking
spaces.
The parking area will be covered in 1/8” minus gravel. This is similar to pea gravel in size.
Unfinished plate steel edging is noted to line the beds, it is assumed that this will line the gravel
parking areas. The parking area locations are in conformance with the guidelines and no new
curb cuts would be constructed. The center strip of the ribbon driveway is labeled as gravel or
sod center strip.
Dumpster pad enclosure:
The dumpster pad enclosure is located on the southeast corner of the site with the maximum
distance from the street as possible with access to the alley. The dumpster is to be screened
with vegetation. The zoning ordinance requires that if vegetation be used a screening for
dumpster areas, it must be mature vegetation to provide the same screening as a fence would
at time of installation.
HEIGHT
The height of the proposed building is between the heights and widths of the Waffle House and
the law school dorms. It is a three story building, a height that is not common in the district, but
common on that block. Most structures are one or two story. However, in this area, the law
school dorm is three stories, the law school is five, and the church/Bylites building is three. The
scale of the building is appropriate with the immediate area, but not the district as a whole.
Page 27 of 40
The new building will not have a raised foundation. The foundation is appropriate with
commercial structures in the district.
The overall height of the building from the west facade of the shed roof is 35’-2‘’±. The height
between the first and second floor is 12’. The difference between the second and third floor is
10’. This includes any structural members for flooring and ceiling. The actual floor to ceiling
height was not specified. The floor to ceiling heights are appropriate with the district.
PROPORTION
The shape of the structure is rectangular and is compatible with the surrounding buildings. It is
similar in shape to the Waffle House (at 908 McGowan) and the Barrister College apartments
(at 1016 McGowan) and between the two in size. The shape of the building is appropriate to
the district.
RHYTHM
An entrance to the structure is at the corner of 10th and McMath. The building runs east and
west, the same way as the original lot runs. The orientation is appropriate with the district.
ROOF AREA
The proposed building will have 1/12 pitch shed roof pitched toward the east. This roof shape
emulates a parapet roof, without having the parapets. Historic commercial projects have shed
roofs with parapets and the shed roof pitches to the rear (short side) of the building, usually with
a shallow pitch. The roof will be covered with “Pre finished metal roofing; McElroy Maxima 1.5
without gutters or downspouts. Galvalume (silver) finish was specified. The link for the roofing
is: http://www.mcelroymetal.com/content/products/display.cfm?product_id=1.
This proposed roof is appropriate with the district.
ENTRANCE AREA
There are two main entrances to the building, one on the west and one on the east. There is an
additional entrance on the south side of the building in the center of the building.
The locations of entrances are where they would have been in historic buildings. Many corner
commercial buildings had recessed corner porches. Having a porch that goes the full width of
the building is not a typical historical model.
These porches are not porches in the sense that they are added onto the front of the structure,
they are created by the subtractive process of removing space which is more typical of historic
commercial structures. There will be differing heights of 8’ and 10’ clearance on the porches.
The “wraparound” covered porch that is on the west façade has a depth of 8’ along McMath and
a depth of 5’-4” on 10th. The door is about 22” from the front of the building. There is a similar
porch on the east side of the building with a 4’ overhang and the door being 16’± from the end of
the building. The location (distance) of the doors to the street is atypical for commercial
buildings of the district.
These porches are supported by painted 3” diameter steel columns at varying angles. There
are three on the east and west. It is unclear by the drawing whether the area under the
overhang will be paved. The porch height and depth are appropriate with the district.
On the north elevation, there is noted a “site cast concrete stem wall and bench: 24” height to
coordinate with foundation height of neighboring historic residence.” This bench is 7’-8” long.
Page 28 of 40
WALL AREAS / FACADE
The west and north side of the building will be visible from the street. The east façade will be
visible from the street even with the additional building that is planned to be built to the east.
The south façade of the building may be obscured by additional buildings to be built, especially
the eastern half. The building is somewhat divided into two divisional bays on the north and
south façade. The west façade is taller than the east wall because of the shed roof.
DETAILING
4. Building Materials
Building materials that are similar to those used historically for major surfaces in the
area should be used. Materials for roofs should be similar in appearance to those
used historically. New materials may be used if their appearances are similar to
those of the historic building materials. Examples of acceptable new building
materials are cement fiber board, which has the crisp dimensions of wood and can
be painted, and standing seam metal roofs, preferably finished with a red or dark
color.
Finishes similar to others in the district should be used. If brick, closely match mortar
and brick colors. If frame, match lap dimensions with wood or composite materials,
not vinyl or aluminum siding.
Details and textures should be similar to those in the neighborhood (trim around
doors, windows and eaves; watercourses; corner boards; eave depths, etc.)
The trim of the windows and doors has not been specified with the change to Hardie Lap
siding. In fact, the drawings still specify that they will be trimmed out with McElroy 1” J-
mold break metal trim.
SCALE / MASSING
The Guidelines state:
2. Building Mass and Scale:
New buildings should appear similar in mass and scale with historic structures in the
area. This includes height and width.
The height of the proposed building is between the heights and widths of the Waffle House and
the Barrister College apartments. It is a three story building, a height that is not common in the
district, but common on that block. Most structures are one or two story. However, in this area,
the Barrister College apartments is three stories, the law school is five, and the church/Bylites
building is three This immediate area of the district is not built to the same scale as the majority
of the district. It has higher percentage of large scale buildings. The mass of the proposed
building is appropriate with the immediate area, but not the district as a whole.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one
comments regarding this application in support.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Approval of PCD by Board of Directors.
2. Obtaining a building permit with corrected drawings showing exterior materials as
approved.
Page 29 of 40
3. Exterior sheathing on second and third floors to be Hardie Lap siding and brick on the
first floor. Trim on doors, windows and corners on the second and third floors will be a
minimum of 4” wide.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 10, 2013
Brian Minyard made a presentation with the changes to the application since the last
application. All of the commissioners present tonight were here at the last meeting. Mr.
Minyard stated the Staff recommendation with the conditions noted. Mr. Minyard stated that the
following items need to be clarified for the record; Louvers on the south façade and brick on the
first floor. There was citizen comment of one email in support, one phone call in opposition, one
of a neutral nature and the QQA supports staff’s recommendation. Staff’s recommendation has
changed with the second sentence on item #3 to be stricken.
Matt Snyder, speaking for the applicant, showed some slides that were previously shown at the
last meeting. He spoke of the cement fiber board and the need for proper maintenance. He
then continued on the siding, windows and the guidelines in reference to the Secretary of
Interior standards. On colors, he noted that the grey and charcoal were the desired final colors.
He continued that this building will have a very short parapet all on three sides. He continued
and expressed concern about moisture without having a soffit on the building. The “Tamlyn
Xtreme” trim can be taped so that it will be water tight. The trim on the corners will be 1 1/2”
wide. The trim is to be painted the same color as the body of the building. The trim was never
meant to be prominent. This trim will allow for less caulking and less maintenance.
This building has a gutter in the rear with a downspout.
The louvers are metal slat louvers for the bathrooms and will be painted the same color as the
siding.
Commissioner Mark Brown asked about the size of the building. Mr. Snyder said it was around
1,800 s.f. per floor with a total of 4,500 s.f. plus or minus.
Vice-Chair Toni Johnson said that she was glad to see the applicant listened to comments of
the Commission and changed their design.
There were no citizens speaking in favor or against the application.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey made a motion to approve the three story mixed development at
1001-107 McMath Avenue with Staff recommendations as amended. Rachelle Walsh seconded
and the motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 2 absent (Bowen and Ripley) and 1 open position.
Page 30 of 40
DATE: March 10, 2014
APPLICANT: Robin Raveendran, S & K Holdings, Inc.
ADDRESS: 1023 Scott Street
COA REQUEST: Replacement of Windows
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1023 Scott Street. The
property’s legal description is “Lot C and Lot G, Scott
Street Square HPR addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This multifamily building was built in the 1920s. The
2006 survey form states: “A 1920s structure designed in
hipped roof subtype of Colonial Revival style. The
heavily elaborated entrance and shutters 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. The
applicant replaced windows without a COA.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a
search of the files.
In early September, Staff was contacted by Mr. Raveendran bout replacing the windows in the
units with Jeld-Wen tradition Plus Primed Wood Double Hung windows. An email with an
attachment of the window detail was received on September 12, 2013. The applicant wanted
the Staff to sign off on the replacement of the windows.
Tony Bozynski and Brian Minyard visited the site and determined that the majority of the
windows could be repaired and did not warrant replacement. This occurred between 9-12 and
9-19, 2013.
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 31 of 40
On September 19, 2013, a letter was sent to Mr. Raveendran via certified return receipt stating
that there was a façade easement on the property and that all changes had to be approved by
AHPP. It stated that if the work amounted to maintenance, after AHPP’s approval the Staff
would write a COC Certificate of Compliance. If it required replacement, Staff would process
the COA Certificate of Appropriateness application. AHPP was alerted to this letter and given
contact information.
October 3, 2013, AHPP staff was alerted about a possible conservation easement enforcement
issue on the site.
Staff received a call from a citizen on December 19, 2013. Staff of HDC and AHPP met on the
site that afternoon and witnessed the installation of all new windows on the ground floor unit.
The applicant was called by the contractor and met with both staffs on site. A letter was sent
certified return receipt to stop any further work on the site and to file for a COA.
A COA was filed on January 8, 2014.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
The applicant proposed to replace the original wood windows in the house with Jeld-Wen
Tradition Plus Primed Wood Double Hung windows. They are not clad but did arrive primed.
These windows are a double paned glass with snap in wood muntins on the interior and
exterior. There are aluminum spacers between the two panes of glass at the wood muntins.
This simulated divided glass, but the windows are not true divided glass windows.
The sills have been replaced as well as the jambs. Brick mold has been installed on some of
the windows that does not match the existing brick mold. The applicant has offered to install
matching brick mold on those windows.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation state:
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
Page 32 of 40
Energy consumption and conservation are topics of conversation in many circles. While the
desire to conserve energy is admirable, the preservation of historic building materials is equally
important. One option to improve efficiency is to install storm windows in addition to the historic
windows. That solution is a common practice in homes of this age and the historic fabric is still
present.
The Commission discussed replacement windows in the Commission Hearing on January 11,
2010 in the Workshop item. It covered Storm Windows and Replacement Windows. A portion
of that report is included:
The topic of energy savings has again moved to the forefront of renovations with the
added tax credits for rehab and energy conservation tax credits passed by Congress
that will give credits to many items that conserve energy from new appliances, new heat
and air systems, insulation in your home, new replacements windows and storm
windows. Air infiltration is the culprit that many of these home renovations are
attempting to thwart. Most homeowners
are assured that “new windows” will save
them lots of money and will solve all of
their air infiltration issues because the
window salesman told them so.
However, as the chart to the right and the
one below show, air infiltration by
windows and doors are ranked fifth and
sixth of all air infiltration culprits. The
main offender in air infiltration in the
home is floors, walls, and ceilings that
account for 31% of all air infiltration.
After that is ductwork at 15%, fireplaces
at 14% and plumbing penetrations at
13%.
Courtyard view of building from 2006 survey. 11th Street elevation from 2006 survey.
Source: California Energy Commission
Page 33 of 40
Basically, air seeps through your walls, ceilings, and floors at a much greater rate than
through your windows and doors combined. Adding insulation to your ceilings and floors
can be done with no external change to the structure and not evoke the COA process.
The insulation of walls can be more difficult, but can be achieved from inside or outside
without a COA. Likewise, sealing the HVAC ductwork; inspecting and replacing or
repairing the damper in your fireplace; installing expanding foam around plumbing
entries; and sealing around fans, vents, and outlets can save energy dollars without a
COA.
For many years, people have been adding storm windows to their home. According to
Paul Trudeau, (NAPC Staff) storm windows have been in existence for over 100 years.
Before that, people protected the sashes of their windows through operable shutters.
The addition of storm windows changed with the recent invention of vinyl (plastic)
windows. The vinyl was cheap enough to entice people to replace the whole window
unit instead of adding storm windows. The chart below describes energy savings and
financial payback on window replacements. The chart assumes this is existing
construction with single pane original windows in place. This chart was shown by Paul
Trudeau at CAMP in September 2009 in Eldorado, AR. Starting on the left side of the
graphic, a $50 storm window when combined with the existing window has a U-factor
(efficiency factor) of .50. Your old wood window has a U-Value of 1.10. The lower the
U-factor, the better. The energy savings is 722,218 Btu with an annual savings per
window of $13.20. This simple payback will take 4.5 years. The next three examples
show differences in the types of windows installed and the types of windows being
replaced. This is annual energy savings as compared to the window it is replacing. The
energy savings noted in this chart is not for new construction. For example, to replace
your original window with a double-pane thermal window saves 625,922 Btu over what
was there before. Your windows will be tight, but the cost will take 40.5 years to recoup
the cost. By that time, a vinyl window will need to be replaced and the homeowner will
be “underwater on their window mortgage.” A more extreme example is to replace your
original windows and storm windows with Low-e glass double pane thermal windows.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
Page 34 of 40
That takes 240 years to recoup the cost of the windows. Also, note that the old windows
go to the dump yard when taken out. The thermal seal in the double and triple paned
windows are noticeable when they are broken as evidenced by the condensation in
between the layers of the glass.
The metal on storm windows can be painted to match the sash of the house before they
are installed. Storm windows also come in different colors from the factory, mill
(aluminum color), bronze and white are common colors. Painting your windows at the
same time as installing the storm windows will provide a seamless installation that will
obscure the presence of the storm windows as much as possible.
It is also important to buy storm windows with full screens that mimic the older screens.
On fixed windows, no screen is allowable, since no screen would have been there
originally. On operable storm windows, the sash size must match with the original
windows to provide the best results.
Interior storm windows are an option that does not require a COA. Some research on
the web provided professional companies along with do-it-yourself options. A DIY option
is at
http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/energy/conservation/basics_1/window_cover.htm
. Toolbase Services has a list of manufacturers of interior storm windows at
http://www.toolbase.org/TechInventory/TechDetails.aspx?ContentDetailID=938. Climate
Seal promotes interior storm windows that have a “refrigerator like seal” that has a
magnetic attachment system described at the website below.
Source: Keith Habereern, P.E. R.A.
Collingswood Historic District Commission
Page 35 of 40
http://www.climateseal.com/preservation_window_inserts/preservation_window_inserts.
htm. All of the interior storm windows that were located on line are removable during
mild weather days to allow the opening of the original windows. Below are two graphics
that show interior storm windows. The energy savings calculated in the graphic above
are based on exterior storm windows, not interior storm windows although U-Values are
thought to be similar.
This shows a person
removing an interior storm
window.
This shows the interior storm window installed. It is
placed vertically against the lower sash in this photo.
Below are the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for storm windows and
replacement windows.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall
be avoided.
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of
craftsmanship that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced.
Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature,
the new feature shall match the old in design, color, texture and other visual
qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features shall
be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy
historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated
from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment.
Page 36 of 40
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be
undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and
integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.
When the Secretary of the Interior Standards are applied strictly, no replacement
windows are installed in the district. The addition of storm windows is completely
reversible, as standard number 10 requires where as a replacement window is not.
The education of the public needs to enforce the facts that replacement windows are not
the end all to energy savings that they are purported to be, not on a financial level or an
energy saving level. Maintaining the original wood windows with an appropriate interior
or exterior storm window is acceptable to the HDC and the Secretary of Interior
Standards.
This application for replacement of original
windows is unique in the fact that there is a
Conservation Easement on the property.
Sometimes those are called Façade Easements.
The State of Arkansas owns that Conservation
Easement and they are currently deciding on their
course of action. Arkansas Historic Preservation
Program monitors those easements and has been
in communication with the applicant regarding the
window issue.
Staff visited the site during mid-September 2013
and decided that the majority of the windows could
be repaired. A couple of sashes were warped so
that the lock on the meeting rail was not operable.
Those couple of sashes could have been repaired
or replaced under the maintenance provisions of
the HDC, with AHPP approval since the property
has a Conservation Easement on it. There were
some sills that may have needed to be replaced, but that did not warrant replacing the entire
window unit.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were two
comments regarding this application in opposition.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Deferral. The applicant has met with AHPP officials and the
representative from the Attorney General’s office and has devised a work plan on the repair of
the windows in the second floor apartment (G). Staff would recommend to defer this item for
one month to see if the windows on the second floor can be repaired.
COMMISSION ACTION: February 10, 2014
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation concerning the item. Staff is recommending deferral
of this item until the March 2014 meeting. Staff noted that the City would send the notices out to
the property owners notifying them of the deferral. Commissioner BJ Bowen made a motion to
defer the item till March 2014 and was seconded by Rachelle Walsh. The item passed with a
vote of 6 ayes and 1 open position.
Parts of a wood window
Page 37 of 40
STAFF UPDATE: March 10, 2014
Staff received an email from Paul Porter of AHPP dated January 31, 2014 concerning the
outcome of the meeting with the applicant with AHPP Staff.
“The meeting this morning resulted in AHPP allowing Mr. Raveendran to keep
the replacement windows on the first floor. The contractor will make the brick
molds to match the historic brick mold trim on the other windows in the building.
The second floor windows will need to be retained. A site visit will be scheduled
between our office, Mr. Raveendran and a contractor to inspect the second floor
windows to develop a schedule of repairs or partial replacement (sash, or sills,
meeting rails, etc.) that is mutually agreed upon and put in writing by our office.
Mr. Raveendran was instructed to do absolutely nothing with the second floor
windows until he had approval in writing from our office. A copy of that written
approval will be forwarded to your office for your review.”
Staff received an email from Paul Porter of AHPP dated February 25, 2014 concerning the
rehabilitation of the windows in the second floor unit.
“Brian Driscoll and I went over to view the work on the two completed windows at
Scott Square. Roger is doing a great job on refurbishing the original windows,
and the brick molds on the new windows on the main floor match the originals.
We approved the continuation of the refurbishment on the remainder of the
windows. I will follow up with a formal approval letter in the mail and I will send a
copy to the city for your records”.
The second floor windows will be rehabilitated under the Certificate of Compliance (COC)
standards and will not require a vote of the Commission.
It has been Staff’s opinion that the windows could have been refurbished under the COC
process since our first visit to the site. Staff visited the site in mid-September and informed the
applicant that they could be refurbished with minimal replacement of parts and did not warrant
replacement. The applicant was told that to replace the windows would require a Certificate of
Appropriateness application in front of the Commission with a public hearing. The applicant
expressed that he did not want to appear before the Commission. That being said, the
applicant was in the process of replacing the windows on the lower floor unit when City Staff
and AHPP Staff visited the site on December 19, 2013.
On December 19th, both Staffs toured the interior of the downstairs unit. The window sashes
were still on site and could have been reinstalled or reinstalled in new jambs. That action would
have tested the COC requirements, but would have left the integrity of the windows intact. In a
best case scenario, the windows would have been reinstalled, or partially installed on one
elevation only.
This property is unique in the fact that there is a conservation (façade) easement on the
property. The State of Arkansas, for all intents and purposes, owns the exterior of the building.
Their final approval of the installation of the windows on the first floor with modifications to the
brick mold and the refurbishing of the windows on the second floor trump any decision made by
the HDC. However, it is the prerogative of the HDC to approve a stricter motion, but knowing
that the state has enforcement on this in an effort to relay the gravity of the situation of
wholesale replacement of the windows without any approval of either Staff or the Historic
District Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot support replacement of historic windows that could
have been repaired.
Page 38 of 40
COMMISSION ACTION: March 10, 2013
Brian Minyard noted that the Commission’s bylaws state the item cannot be heard without the
applicant present. There was a motion made to amend the agenda to place this item at the
bottom of the agenda by Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey and was seconded by Commissioner
Rachelle Walsh. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 2 absent (Bowen and Ripley) and 1
open position.
The item was heard at the end of the other items that evening.
The applicant was offered to defer since there are only four commissioners present. The
applicant chose to have the hearing tonight. He stated that he wanted to proceed with the
hearing.
Brian Minyard made a presentation on the history of the item and the timeline.
Robin Raveendran, the applicant, stated that he had reached out to the city and go t verbal
approval to replacing windows downstairs from the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program
(AHPP). The replaced more than they had given him permission to replace. He stated that he
was confused at to who to report to.
Mr. Minyard explained the situation to the Commission. The applicant has been working with
AHPP on the remainder of the windows on the second floor. The first two have been repaired to
the satisfaction of AHPP and the work has begun on repairing the rest of the windows on the
second floor. AHPP has signed off on the replacement of the windows on the first floor.
Mr. Minyard stated that it is the CLR staff’s position that all of windows could have been
repaired. The fact that the state of Arkansas owns the façade easement trumps any decision
that this commission makes regarding the windows. It is the prerogative of the HDC to approve
a stricter motion, but knowing that the state has enforcement on this in an effort to relay the
gravity of the situation of wholesale replacement of the windows without any approval of either
Staff or the Historic District Commission. Staff is requesting a denial of this application to send
a message to the community.
Mr. Raveendran spoke of his contacting the City and AHPP concerning the windows. He spoke
of the stop work order and loss of income. He spoke of redoing brick mold on the bottom
windows. He received a letter dated march 6th from AHPP to finish the repair of the second
floor window.
Vice-Chair Toni Johnson stated that he had valid points on the confusion, but regardless, he
had to have approval from the State. Mr. Minyard explained the ramifications of the state
owned easement and the decision from the State trumping the decision of the HDC. He
continued that if the HDC denied his application, he still has the permission to do what he is
doing and what he has already done from the State.
Mr. Minyard said that the stop-work order would be lifted today regardless of the outcome of the
hearing.
Stephen Giles, President of the condo association at the subject application, said that this wife
owns a unit there since 1976. Since the recession started, some units have become neglected
and subject to foreclosure. He stated that he was glad the units had been purchased and was
starting to be fixed up. He stated that he met Staff on site on December 19th.
Page 39 of 40
Mr. Giles continued that at the Condo Board meeting, some members were upset at the window
changes. For exterior work to the units, the owners are supposed to get permission from the
Board as stated in the master deed and bylaws. He stated that with purchase, he was made
aware of the rules of the association.
He stated that most are happy with the improvements, that the windows are not bad looking, but
do not want anything to interfere with the tax credits on the property. He would support screens
on the windows. The Board is okay as long as the building permits are obtained and they do
not lose their tax credits.
Mr. Minyard said that he would get with the state about the tax credit. He also suggested that
when the repair is done to the windows upstairs if the other owners would look at that repair
work and see if it was suitable for the needs of the other windows. He continued that the city
and state would work together to approve maintenance/repair on the windows. If a tenant wants
to replace the windows, they would be required to have a public hearing like this one and with
review of the state.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey made a motion to approve the new windows at 1023 South Scott
Street with Staff recommendations as amended. Vice-Chair Toni Johnson seconded and the
motion failed with a vote of 0 ayes, 4 noes, 2 absent (Bowen and Ripley) and 1 open position.
The Commission spoke as to why the voted no.
Commissioner Boaitey appreciated the dialogue and the background and agreed with Staff.
Vice-Chari Johnson reiterated that the State of Arkansas trumps but wanted to send a message
to the community to repair versus replace. She wanted citizen input.
Commissioner Brown stated that the exterior of the buildings and windows are part of the entire
community. Most can be repaired and made serviceable. He wished the applicant best of luck.
Commissioner Walsh said that she was happy that he chose to invest downtown. This violates
# 6 and 9 of the Secretary of Interior standards.
Mr. Minyard said that the stop work order would be lifted tomorrow morning. Mr. Raveendran
said he was totally finished with the repair of the windows.
Ill. Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Enforcement issues brought to the attention of the Staff was commercial store on East 6th
street.
The Arkansas Arts Center has applied for the large banner on the north side of the building. Mr.
Minyard said that the banners that face 10th street at the entrance has been approved a while
back when the addition was approved.
Commissioner Boaitey asked about the time requirements that were approved by the
Commission. Mr. Minyard said that it is being prepared to go to the Board of Directors. There
was a discussion of whether it would be retroactive or not. Mr. Minyard said that the
commission voted for it to be retroactive, but that is subject to change at the Board of Directors.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff gave a spreadsheet of the COCs to the Commissioners.
CLG Grant
Staff handed in our grant application to the state on Friday. He went over the grant application
including match money.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens present to speak.
IV. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:42 p.m.
Attest:
Ch
Secretary /Staff
Date
Date
Page 40 of 40