HDC_10 13 2014Page 1 of 10
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, October 13, 2013, 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
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
Page Wilson
Jennifer Carman
Jeremiah Russell
Members Absent: none
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Doug Melkovitz
Rhea Roberts
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner BJ Bowen to approve the minutes of September 8, 2014
as submitted. Commissioner Mark Brown seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote
of 5 ayes and 2 recusals (Carman and Russell).
Notice requirements were met on all applications to be heard tonight.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Page 2 of 10
DATE: October 13, 2014
APPLICANT: Doug Melkovitz, WFM Properties
ADDRESS: 923 McMath, 923 1/2 McMath, 718 E 10th & 720 E 10th
COA REQUEST: Install Fencing at all locations; install replacement windows at 923 1/2
McMath (rear building), 718 E 10th, and 720 E 10th; and replace siding
at 923 1/2 McMath.
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 923 McMath, 923 1/2
McMath, 718 E 10th & 720 E 10th. The property’s legal
description is “Lots 8 & 9 west of I-30, lots 10 and lot 11,
Block 4, Masonic Addition to the City of Little Rock,
Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This application has four buildings on the site:
923 McMath is a “simple Queen Anne structure with
steeply hipped roofs and cutaway corners at front façade.
The original siding and porch detailing has been
replaced.” This was built circa 1929 and is considered a
contributing structure to the district.
923 1/2 McMath, the ancillary building, was built circa
1960 and is considered a non-contributing resource to
the district.
718 E 10th Street is a two story apartment building of eight flats with a mansard roof covering
the second floor and providing covered entry. It was built circa 1978 and is considered a non-
contributing resource to the district.
720 E 10th Street is the same as 718 in architectural features, but only has four flats. It was built
circa 1978 and is considered a non-contributing resource to the district.
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 3 of 10
This application is for multiple items:
• Install Fencing at all locations; Install 36” tall picket fence in front of 923 McMath along
McMath Street and on south side of that lot approximately one-half way back on house
(noted as “A” on sketch). Install 36” tall black aluminum fence along the balance of
McMath Street and the entirety of 10th Street (noted as “B” on sketch). No pedestrian or
vehicular gates will be installed. Install 6’ privacy fence along the frontage road and the
north property line to tie into existing fence at Pizza Hut property. Also install 6’ privacy
fence on south side of 923 McMath to screen rear yard from the street (noted as “C” on
sketch)
• Replace aluminum single pane windows at 923 1/2 McMath, 718 E 10th, and 720 E 10th
with “Aluminum Double Pane Double Strength Replacement Single Hung Window”.
• Replace siding at 923 1/2 McMath with Hardie Plank fiber cement siding to match
existing.
• No exterior changes will be made to the Contributing structure at 923 McMath.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On April 22, 2013, a COC was issued for roof repairs at 718 E 10th.
Other actions were found but are more than 10 years ago and no longer relevant.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
Fencing:
The Guidelines state on page 58-60:
3. Fences and Retaining Walls:
Fencing on street frontage & front yard—36”
923 McMath – 2007 photo 923 1/2 McMath – 2007 photo
718 E 10th Street – 2007 photo 720 E 10th Street – 2007 photo
Page 4 of 10
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.
Fence Plan
Page 5 of 10
The proposal for fencing on this site will
enclose both lots to attempt to eliminate
cross pedestrian traffic by non-residents of
the buildings. There are no pedestrian or
vehicular gates to be installed. The proposal
includes a 36” tall picket fence in front of 923
McMath along McMath Street and on the
south side of that lot approximately one-half
way back on house (noted as “A” on sketch).
This could give the appearance of separating this “Contributing” house from the parking area to
the south.
The 36” tall black aluminum fence continues along the balance of McMath Street and the
entirety of 10th Street (noted as “B” on sketch). This fence stops at the existing sidewalks and
driveways. The fence will feature square posts with ball finials. It will be painted black.
A 6’ privacy fence is proposed to be installed along the frontage road and the north property line
to tie into existing fence on the south side of the Pizza Hut property. Also the proposal includes
installing 6’ privacy fences on the south side of 923 McMath to screen the rear yard from the
street (noted as “C” on sketch below.) The fencing plan conforms to the guidelines with the
exception of the 6’ fence along the frontage road.
Windows:
The Guidelines state on page 44:
Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their
original materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded, beveled, or patterned
glass, which is a character-defining feature of a building, should not be removed.
Windows should not be added to the primary façade or to a secondary façade if
easily visible. Windows should be repaired rather than replaced. However, if
replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the replacement should
match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design. Replacement
windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Wood clad windows may be
appropriate if the structure originally had wood windows. Wood clad windows
are wood construction windows with an outer coating of vinyl or metal that
facilitates easier maintenance. Windows of 100% vinyl are not appropriate in the
36’ picket fence (A)
36” Aluminum fence (B) 6’ wood privacy fence (C)
Page 6 of 10
historic district since they were not historically
installed in the structures. Unless they originally
existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and
glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building.
The Secretary of the Interior Standard #6 states:
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.
The windows on all three buildings are aluminum and most
probably were aluminum when originally installed. The
proposed replacement windows are also aluminum. The
windows the front of 718 and 720 E 10th are eight over eight and the rest are mostly six over
six. The windows on 923 1/2 McMath are six over six. These buildings are non-contributing
structures to the district. The windows are, in Staff’s opinion, not repairable. Replacement
windows should have the same grid system that the current windows have and be of same size
and location. Staff believes that the replacement of the windows is appropriate.
Siding:
The Guidelines state on page 48:
Siding:
Historic siding materials, such as weatherboard,
wood shingles, and stucco, should be
preserved. If original siding materials must be
replaced, the new siding should match the
original as closely as possible, especially with
respect to board size. Original corner boards
should be duplicated in their full original
dimensions.
The Secretary of the Interior Standard #6 states:
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.
The siding on 923 1/2 is, according to the owner, a particle board siding. It may actually be a
“Masonite” brand siding product. Regardless of the origins of the siding, it has not performed
well on this structure. The proposal is to remove all of the siding from the structure and replace
JELD-WEN 4100 series window
923 1/2 McMath
Page 7 of 10
with Hardie Plank fiber cement siding. Currently, the siding has a about a 5 1/2 inch reveal with
two simulated boards on one sheet of siding. This could be a achieved with six inch planks of
Hardie plank. Staff believes that replacement with 6” Hardi plank siding in a textured finish is
appropriate replacement.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: October 10, 2014
A presentation of the item was made by Brian Minyard, Staff. Chair Toni Johnson asked if there
was an option on the profile of the siding. Mr. Minyard responded that he applicant would be
the best one to answer that.
Mr. Doug Melkovitz, the applicant, spoke of the problems with the homeless in that area and
their congregating in the park. They are trying to figure out a way to keep people from walking
across the property.
Chair Johnson confirmed that there were no gates to be installed on the fences. Mr. Melkovitz
stated that the fences were a deterrent and makes a clear boundary for the public.
Commission Jennifer Carman asked about the texture of the siding. Mr. Melkovitz said that
80% was one type of siding and 20% was another. It does have texture on it, but has rotted out.
They are trying to maintain and seal out the exterior elements.
Mr. Minyard pointed out that in the staff report that some of the windows were 8/8 and some 6/6.
They are mixed on each building. Mr. Melkovitz said that he had no problem in matching the
grids in the widows to the existing.
There we no citizens to speak at this time.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell made a motion to approve the application with Staff conditions.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 7 ayes and 0
absent.
Page 8 of 10
V. Other Matters
Enforcement issues:
There are no new enforcement items to present to the Commission.
Certificates of Compliance:
The email was sent with the last two or three months worth. A COC was issued for 809 Rock
for roofing and siding work this morning.
Bylaw review:
Debra Weldon made a presentation of the item. She noted that she had concerns over adding
categories. New Business would include COAs, not just the new business in the Other Matters
section. Other Matters is a catchall category for old and new business, topics for discussion,
etc.
Chair Toni Johnson asked for a clarification on the roman numerals. Is the order correct? It
was discussed that in the Bylaws, Roman numeral I and II are combined on the agenda, Calling
of the Roll and establishing a Quorum. This proposal is to add another Roman numeral called
New Business. New Business would be moved out of other matters.
Commissioner BJ Bowen asked why we are doing this. Ms. Weldon stated that she had a
request by Commissioner Wilson to look at this. Commissioner Wilson stated that he was trying
to differentiate new topics, such as I-30 improvements, retreats, etc. He wanted this pulled out
of Other Matters. He stated that he would run the topics through Staff so that he would know it
was coming. He stated that he followed the rules and submitted the revision to Debra Weldon
last month. He says that it may sound redundant, but it gives the commissioners the ability to
talk.
Ms. Weldon clarified that if the entire order of agenda provision is read, it states “All meeting
shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the topics and cases
in the following sequence.” The agenda must have the topics for discussion and those
requested shall be put in Other Matters or under New Business under Other Matters. This is not
an open forum. The topics are in the agenda so that the Chair can follow the agenda and keep
the meeting in order. Mr. Wilson stated he wants to be able to add new items to the agenda
that are important to the district. He stated that he had come at this because he had been cut
off. He continued about the presentation of the I-30 improvements. Ms. Weldon said that it was
posted on the agenda for the next meeting and the presentation was held.
Chair Johnson commented that just moving the items to a different category may not change
what is discussed. Mr. Wilson stated that he would need to have the votes to change anything
concerning the bylaws.
Ms. Weldon states that if it a public hearing, a legal ad will need to be advertised for that item to
be on the agenda. Commissioner Wilson agreed and said that is why he has to go through
Staff. Ms. Weldon added that there may need to be notice of property owners in any item that is
added to the agenda.
Chair Johnson made a point that if a topic of discussion was brought up that needed further
discussion and a vote, that item would be tabled until the next meeting, all legal ads posted,
notifications made, etc., and then the item would be placed on the agenda for the next meeting
and voted on at that second meeting. It might take two months, but it could be done. Ms.
Page 9 of 10
Weldon stated that it would depend if it was a procedural matter or not as to whether it would
take an additional month.
Chair Johnson asked if we already had what Commissioner Wilson was asking for. Ms. Weldon
said that it was already included in the agenda.
Mr. Wilson said that he was looking for a venue to have a discussion for topics that are broader
than the Historic District.
Commissioner Jennifer Carman asked if the question was that the items must be on the agenda
in advance? Ms. Weldon stated that the topic of discussion is required to be on the agenda in
advance. It would be placed on the agenda under Other Matters. Commissioner Carman
asked of the process would change. Ms. Weldon said no.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked if, under Other Matters, he could just say something that
was not on the agenda. Chair Johnson said that a comment is different than a discussion. Ms.
Weldon said that the Chair’s job is to bring the meeting back to the agenda. Chair Johnson said
that if a comment developed into a discussion, it would need to be put on the agenda for the
next meeting. Mr. Minyard added that would give Staff time to do research if needed on the
topic for a presentation or discussion. It would give time to talk with the Commission to flesh out
exactly what the topic was. Commissioner BJ Bowen said that we could keep the existing
agenda and still meet the needs of Commissioner Wilson. Commissioner Wilson asked who
over ruled who, the Chair of the City Attorney. Ms. Weldon stated that anyone can ask for a
Point of Order on the discussion. This is a public forum; we are supposed to follow the agenda.
It is important that the topics be described in the agenda.
Chair Johnson asked Commissioner Wilson if he still feels that a change in format would do any
different? Commissioner Wilson said he appreciated Ms. Weldon for doing this but feels that it
could be kept in Other Matters. He feels that this discussion was productive.
Chair Johnson stated that today clarified a lot of items for her. It was noted that there was no
need for a motion on this item.
Commissioner Wilson asked if we could ask the Consultant to take a look at the bylaws. Mr.
Minyard said that the grant was not for that, and it was not an issue that a consultant would
normally look at. Mr. Minyard said no. Ms. Weldon agreed; they are procedural requirements.
There was a discussion on when the bylaws were updated last. Mr. Minyard stated that the last
revision was fairly exhaustive, with changes to notifications, deferrals, applicants must be
present at the hearing, etc. There was a thorough discussion at that time.
There was no New Business at this time.
Commissioner Wilson asked about the RFQ process. Mr. Minyard said that the RFQ is now in
the Finance departments hands. They will let me know when it is online. The individual that
you requested me contact will be contacted along with the other persons that were provided by
AHPP. They will be notified that that RFQ is online and they will go through the process like
any other applicant. Mr. Minyard was unsure on how long the RFQ is online. Ms. Weldon and
Commissioner Russell commented on the time requirements. Mr. Minyard asked if
Commissioner Wilson was asking for the time to be extended. Commissioner Wilson said no.
Citizen Communication:
No citizens chose to speak.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn made by Commissioner Bowen and seconded by Commissioner
Boaitey and the meeting ended at 5:49 p.m.
Attest:
C6-air
Secretary /Staff
[1,@ -(
Date
Date
Page 10 of 10