HDC_03 11 20131 of 19
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, March 11, 2013, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being seven (7) in number.
Members Present: Julie Wiedower
Randy Ripley
Chris Vanlandingham
BJ Bowen
Toni Johnson
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey (in at 5:05)
Members Absent: none
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Ibrahim Elsaidi
Rhea Roberts
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of February 11,
2013 as submitted. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded and the minutes were approved with a
vote of 4 ayes, 2 abstentions (Wiedower and Vanlandingham) and 1 absent (Boaitey).
Notice requirements were meet on the application to be heard tonight.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
2 of 19
DATE: March 11, 2013
APPLICANT: Samirah Alwazir
ADDRESS: 314 E 6th Street
COA REQUEST: Signage
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 314 E 6th Street. The
property’s legal description is “West 26' OF Lot 7 & West
26' of the South 10' OF Lot 8 block 40 Original City of
Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This one story commercial building was built in the
1960’s. The 2006 survey form states: “This standard
Commercial 20th Centruy building has aluminum framed
windows and doors at front with side walls and back with
no openings. Mansard Roof attached to front wall
provides protection over sidewalk. The first occupant
was Joseph Pritchard Grocery and remained there
through the 1970’s.” It is not considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
The application was made on January 14, 2013 before
any signs were installed. Since the application time, 4 signs were installed without the approval
of the HDC or Planning Commission. This application is for those four signs.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions were on this site were located with a search of the files.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This application is going to the Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit on February
21, 2013. The subject of the Conditional Use Permit is for a “food store under 5,000 square feet
with sales of beer.” Also included in this application is for signage without street frontage. Signs
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
3 of 19
must face a street, not a neighboring piece of property as the signs on the east and west sides
of the building do. There will also need a franchise permit for the sign on the awning and the ice
machine in the front. Franchise permits are for those items that lie within the public right-of-way.
The guidelines state on page 78:
5. Signs on Commercial Structures:
Signs on commercial buildings should be in proportion to the building and should
be made of historic materials, such as finished carved wood, glass, copper, or
bronze letters. Signs of plastic, plywood, or unfinished wood are not appropriate.
Signs should be placed at traditional locations, such as on storefront beltcourses,
upper façade walls, hanging or mounted inside windows, or projecting from the
face of the building. Lighting for signs should be concealed; up-lit or spot lighting
is recommended.
“Ghost” signs (historic painted wall signs, frequently on sides of brick buildings)
should be preserved and not removed.
The signs on the east and west wall are made of a sheet metal and screwed to the wall. This
metal is not a recommended material. Lighting for the signage has not been discussed nor
installed. This issue will need to be addressed at the meeting.
The guidelines speak of commercial buildings, but our commercial building stock varies in
architectural style and age. This is probably the latest built commercial building that is in the
district being built around 1960. Sign design for that period of architecture may be different than
the carved wood or individual bronze letters mounted on the wall as recommended in the
guidelines. The question for the commission is whether the materials, size, and placement of
the signs are appropriate for this age of a building.
This ice machine in front of the building should also be reviewed. In Section 23-119 of the
ordinance, the text states:
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 deemed by the commission to be obviously incongruous with the historic
aspects of the district.
The question for the Commission is whether the ice machine is incongruous with the historic
aspects of the district.
The building has been previously painted yellow, but the Commission does not review paint
colors and the masonry building was previously painted gray. The awning has also been
repainted to the red color.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
4 of 19
Front façade ca. 2006 Front Façade 1-30-2013
East façade ca. 2006 East Façade 1-30-2013
West façade ca. 2006 West Façade 1-30-2013
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a building permit for any interior remodeling.
2. Each sign will require a sign permit from the Planning Department.
3. Obtain a Franchise permit for the awning, sign on awning and the ice machine.
5 of 19
COMMISSION ACTION: February 11, 2013
Brian Minyard of Staff explained to the Commission that the notices were not mailed on time
and that the item would need to be deferred. He explained that they were five days late on a
notice of ten days. The staff has received some green cards back so Staff knows that they did
go out. Commissioner Randy Ripley asked how many notices were sent out and Staff replied
23. Mr. Minyard continued that they also have a Conditional Use Permit on this property and
told the applicant that they could mail both notifications at the same time in the same envelope.
They did that but not in time for the HDC notice.
Debra Weldon stated that the bylaws noted that the applicant will be required to re-mail the
notices if they missed the first deadline. There was a discussion and it was stated that they had
met the deadline for the Planning Commission but had not met the HDC deadline. Mr. Minyard
noted that you may mail your notices early in order to meet both deadlines.
Commissioner Wiedower asked the applicant if he understood what was happening. Mr.
Ibrahim Elsaidi explained that they have posted the sign on the property but claimed he did not
know of the deadlines for notifications. Commissioner Wiedower explained that the commission
will have to defer until March. She continued that the application was after the fact, the signs
were already up on the building. She did not believe it was going to be a hardship, since he
already had erected his signs. She continued that they will not have to take the permanent
signs down until after the hearing. Mr. Minyard agreed, but added that after approval by the
both Commissions, your signage would have to conform to whatever this Commission says.
Commissioner Randy Ripley stated that they could not make exceptions for one applicant alone.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to defer consideration of the item until the March 11,
2013 hearing or until appropriate notices have been met. Commissioner BJ Bowen seconded
the motion and the item passed with 5 ayes and 2 absent (Vanlandingham and Brown). Mr.
Minyard told the applicant that the latest day to send the notices would be March 1st, 2013.
STAFF UPDATE: March 11, 2013
The applicant has changed the signs on the building by removing some and adding others. The
current signs are the one over the awning on the front of the building and the pole sign which
has two faces. He has removed the two signs on the sides of the building that did not face the
West and Front Façade 2-28-2013 East Façade 2-28-2013
6 of 19
street. But, he has added informational signs painted on the glass. The text is “DELI MEATS”,
“HOT FOOD”, “DOWNTOWN DELI & GROCERY 501-244-9800”, “GROCERY”, AND
“SANDWICHES”. However, the vast majority of the glass has been covered with cigarette ads,
ATM sign, Animated Open sign, pizza signs etc.
Front Façade 2-28-2013
To restate, the Guidelines on page 78 state that the “Signs on commercial buildings should be
in proportion to the building and should be made of historic materials…” What is in proportion to
the building? To assist, here is that applicable codes from the city of Little Rock that would be
applicable.
From Sec. 36-530 Definitions:
Sign means any device, structure, fixture or placard using graphics, symbols, and/or
written copy designed specifically for the purpose of advertising or identifying any
establishment, product, goods or services.
Window sign means a sign installed inside a window and intended to be viewed from the
outside.
Identification sign means a sign whose copy is limited to the name and address of a
building, institution, or person and/or to the activity or occupation being identified.
7 of 19
Incidental sign means a sign, emblem or decal informing the public of goods, facilities or
services available on the premises, e.g., a credit card sign or a sign indicating the hours
of business.
On this application, all of the signs in the windows are Incidental Signs.
From Sec. 36-553.(a)(2).
One (1) freestanding sign per premises, not to exceed two (2) square feet in sign area
for each linear foot of main street frontage up to a maximum of sixty-four (64) square
feet. Such sign may not exceed a height of six (6) feet. In addition to the above
freestanding sign, the owner may use one (1) of the following: Wall or mansard signs not
to exceed ten (10) percent in aggregate sign area for that occupancy's facade area or
One (1) under-canopy or projecting sign per occupancy, not to exceed twelve (12)
square feet in sign area.
On this application, the building is 26 feet wide, so the freestanding sign could be a maximum of
52 square feet. This pole mounted freestanding sign is less that that size.
From Sec. 36-553.(a)(2). a.
Wall or mansard signs not to exceed ten (10) percent in aggregate sign area for that
occupancy's facade area.
On this application, the mansard sign could be a maximum of 41 square feet. The current sign
is approximately 42.74 square feet.
From Sec. 36-557(e)
Within the institutional and office, commercial and industrial districts, each premises may
utilize incidental signs not to exceed twenty (20) square feet in aggregate sign area per
occupancy.
On this application, the Incidental Signs are the Newport cigarette signs, the pizza sign, the
ATM sign, and the “OPEN” sign that is not permanently attached to the windows. The words
“DELI MEATS”, “HOT FOOD”, “DOWNTOWN DELI & GROCERY 501-244-9800”, “GROCERY”,
AND “SANDWICHES” are vinyl lettering applied to the windows. Each window is approximately
32 square feet in area for a total of 64 s.f. With the 20 square feet maximum, less than one third
of the windows could be covered in signs and be in compliance. This location is currently being
reviewed for the sale of beer. Neon beer signs that might be hung in the windows would also be
considered incidental signage.
If the building was not in the Historic District, the signage would be in compliance with the
exception of the incidental signs. However, the Guidelines state that the signage should be in
proportion to the building. The previous discussion was to give the Commission some other
codes to consider in making their decision.
Staff believes that the fixed signage (mansard sign and pole mounted sign) is proportional to the
building. Staff believes that the incidental signs pictured in the photo above contribute to clutter
in the district and are inappropriate. Security can be enhanced if the windows are left clear so
that people can see into and out of the store. Staff believes that the incidental signs should be
limited to the vinyl signage on the windows at this time, the “OPEN” sign and one (1) neon beer
sign in the eastern most window if beer is approved for that location.
The ice machine and the newspaper box will require a franchise from Public Works.
The Commission does not review exterior paint colors on this building because the exterior has
previously been painted. However, the new painting of the building has not been completed.
8 of 19
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Limit signage to the sign on mansard awning, pole sign, “DELI MEATS”, “HOT FOOD”,
“DOWNTOWN DELI & GROCERY 501-244-9800”, “GROCERY”, AND “SANDWICHES”
incidental signs affixed to the window in vinyl lettering, “OPEN” sign and one (1) neon
beer sign in easternmost window if beer is approved for this location.
2. Obtaining a building permit for any interior remodeling and any exterior improvements.
3. Complete painting of the exterior of the building.
4. Each sign will require a sign permit from the Planning Department.
5. Obtain a Franchise permit for the awning, sign on awning and the ice machine.
COMMISSION ACTION: March 11, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission with Staff recommendation.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if the two signs on the side of the building were in the
recommendation. Mr. Minyard said that they were not. Chairman Chris Vanlandingham asked
if the Commission had purview on items such as the ice machine. Debra Weldon, City
Attorney’s Office, stated that the Commission did.
Commissioner Mark Brown recused himself from the item since he owns property within the
150’ area.
Ibrahim (Sam) Elsaidi addressed the Commission. Mr. Elsaidi said that he had no objection to
the Staff recommendation. He did want to add a sign on the back of the building for visibility
from Capitol Avenue. He said that the vendors put the signs in the front windows and that the
vendors wanted them there. He claimed that the signs in the windows added security to the
building.
Commissioner Wiedower wanted to know what the sign on the rear of the building would be like.
He replied that it was one of the signs he took down from the side of the building. She asked if
it would be centered on the building and how high it would be located. Mr. Minyard stated that
the policy of the Commission was to review things visible from a public street and that this would
need to be reviewed since it would be visible from Capitol Avenue. He continued that this would
need to be added to his Conditional Use Permit to be heard at the Planning Commission.
Chairman Vanlandingham spoke in favor of reducing the clutter in the window. He also spoke
that he was in favor of him opening a business in the neighborhood.
Commissioner Randy Ripley asked about the bars on the doors and windows. These were
installed inside the glass horizontally.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about a trash receptacle outside on the sidewalk. Mr. Elsaidi
replied that there was a trash can just inside the door. Commissioner Ripley asked what they
did with their boxes since they do not own any land other than the building. Mr. Elsaidi said they
rented space from the American Legion for a dumpster.
More discussion was held on the layout of the rear of the building and it was determined that the
sign would be centered on the building at the top of the wall, not above the wall.
Mr. Elsaidi verbally amended his application to add the rear sign.
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the amended application to include a sign
at the rear of the building and the five items in the Staff recommendation. Commissioner Toni
9 of 19
Johnston seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 recusal (Brown). Mark
Brown rejoined the meeting after the vote at 5:27.
10 of 19
DATE: March 11, 2013
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District Wide
REQUEST: Amend Guidelines to create Institutional Category
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
During the December 10, 2012 HDC meeting, the commission reviewed a COA for a fence at
the northeast corner of MacArthur Park at the playground site. The subject arose that the
existing Guidelines may not be the most appropriate since the application was neither
Residential nor commercial. The applicant withdrew the fencing component of the item. Staff
announced to the commission that this item would be on the next agenda for their discussion.
For the purpose of this discussion, Staff determined that institutional uses are properties of at
least one-half block in size that houses a public use: a church, a school, a museum, a park, etc.
Letters were sent to the following institutions to ask them to attend this hearing: Quapaw
Quarter Association, St. Edwards Church/School, MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military
History, Arkansas Arts Center, Rockefeller Magnet School/ LRSD, City of Little Rock Parks and
Recreation and the Lutheran Church. This letter stated that the commission would be
discussing items such as signage, fencing, setbacks of buildings, building heights, building
materials, etc.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
The guidelines have been amended in the past, most notably in May 2006 and again in August
2010. The commission has the authority to amend their guidelines and adopt the changes.
The state statute under section 14-172-207, states that the proposed historic district shall have
an ordinance designed to implement the provisions of the subchapter. The city ordinance under
section 23-100 States:
Sec. 23-100. - Duties generally.
(a) Historic district guidelines.
(1) The historic district commission shall adopt design review guidelines for each
local ordinance historic district established pursuant to this article. The guidelines should
provide the commissioners with an objective standard for decisions concerning the
appropriateness of a project in relation to the architectural and historical character of 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.
11 of 19
(2) Design review guidelines shall be reviewed periodically by the historic district
commission for needed revision to ensure that the guidelines are well adapted to the
respective local ordinance historic district.
The current Guidelines state the following concerning Institutional uses. On page 69, there is
reference to “Commercial, Office and Institutional Parking.” And on page 70, there is reference
to “Garbage collectors” for multifamily and institutional sites. A word search of the guidelines
found the word institutional elsewhere only in the appendices.
Staff would propose the following timeline for this item:
1. Listening session on what changes are desired from the various institutions.
2. Discussion by the commission of various topics posed by the citizens.
3. Draft of language and graphics submitted by Staff to the Commission for review.
4. Discussion by commission on draft language and graphics.
5. Public hearing on revised language.
6. Adoption of new Guidelines.
This review will take an expected four to five months. With this review, other sections of the
guidelines will be affected when text is moved to a different section or clarified that it does or
does not apply to institutional uses.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there was one
comment regarding this item from Stephan McAteer of the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas
Military History concerning process.
COMMISSION ACTION: January 14, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation on the Guidelines item.
Ron Ross, Parks and Recreation, started a general discussion of how to relate to the guidelines
and educational values of preservation and helping find ways to do so. He stated that he may
not be totally prepared to have a discussion on the guidelines and would appreciate more time
to come up with items for discussion. He commented that the last application started to do so.
He urged flexibility in interpreting the guidelines.
The past application may have taken a different look of there were different guidelines in place,
in particular the height of the fencing. He does look forward to the conversation.
Stephen McAteer stated that he was not here representing the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas
Military History. He did state that he works in a 173 year old building and was representing the
MacArthur Park Group that has meet for the last six years in the museum. They have a diverse
group to promote and utilize MacArthur Park as a green park. The park is interpreted in many
periods of time. He stated that he stands by his statement of what is good for the park is good
for the Museum and vice versa.
He spoke of the Master Plan process and that it spoke of Safety. He spoke of proposed
improvements to the playground. They have heard from parents of students that use the park
concerned with safety. In hindsight, they should have stressed safety instead of trying to keep
undesirable people out of the park. He urged for wiggle room from current guidelines and how
to modify to make park more viable and user friendly.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if there was information on the usage of the playground
outside of St. Edwards. She said that there is adult supervision when the school children are
12 of 19
there, but who else uses it? Mr. McAteer did not have any stats on that. He thought that there
should not be any extraordinary accommodations for St. Edwards to use the playground. He
has seen parents with children on the weekend. With the fence being down, it has allowed for
more traffic for non-playground traffic in the immediate area. He thought that maybe different
heights on different sides of the playground. We can talk as adults what we would do, but
children do not always practice good judgment (i.e.: chasing balls into the roadway).
When asked about moving the playground to a different spot, he commented that it was like a
house of cards of moving other activities around to find a different spot for the playground. The
height of the current fence was discussed and it is 36” tall in the iron section and 40”tall in the
brick sections.
He continued that the new drives have put a new complexion on the park for the better. He was
willing to trust the authorities on the placement and it is good to be able to park near the pond.
He has noticed increased usage in area of increased lighting and the new drive areas. He has
also noted more usage by females by themselves in the park.
Mr. McAteer noted that they have funds for the dog park and hopefully will be done in six
months or so. Commissioner Randy Ripley stated that he would like to think that the dog park
will create a more defensible space in the Park with more visibility from the freeway. He stated
that more good users than bad users.
Chairman Chris Vanlandingham noted that the great lawn along Ninth Street was getting more
uses. Commissioner Ripley stated that the park should be defined as a destination, and it could
be as big as the River Market. Mr. McAteer noted that the Arkansas Arts Center has a lot of
students there and a lot of them have lunch in the park. Students on fieldtrips use the
playground. Commissioner Ripley says the park should be more diverse for more types of
users. Commissioner Wiedower spoke of conflict between St. Edwards’s children and other
children. Mr. McAteer stated that the St Edwards children were there at recess, but not at
lunch. He continued that there is a lot of acreage at the park and it was more convenient for kids
to use the south end of the park.
Commissioner Wiedower commented on the large variety of institutional uses in the area and
named several.
Chairman Vanlandingham stressed prospective in the guidelines. He continued that we have
the opportunity to create a fabric for the district with design elements that weaves the district
together. Commissioner Ripley is not in favor of modern contemporary fences and should be
woven into the historic district better.
Commissioner Wiedower asked Staff to make a map of the institutional uses, including all
churches. She asked to add the commercial buildings also. A discussion on fences at the
institutional uses was held and Chairman Vanlandingham stated that the fences were all over
the place for institutional uses.
There was a brief discussion on establishing precedent and how the HDC does not establish
precedent on any of its cases. Debra Weldon weighed in on the subject and state that there
needs to be a standard of review for each case or it could; be found that your decisions were
arbitrary or capricious.
13 of 19
STAFF UPDATE: February 11, 2011
Institutional uses are typically defined as public and quasi-public facilities that provide a variety
of services to the community such as schools, libraries, fire stations, churches, utility
substations and hospitals. The district has schools, fire stations, and churches in addition to
police stations, museums, parks, etc. Currently the Guidelines do not have a separate category
for institutional uses. If a category were to be added to the Guidelines, the other sections would
need to be named or renamed. As of the current August 2010 version, Commercial is called out
and everything else is in the other category.
At the end of this report is a map of the institutional uses that were either built as institutional or
currently function as institutional uses. It also includes those buildings that were built to a
commercial standard.
It is Staff’s opinion that there are four options on changes to the guidelines: 1) review changes
based on what the building is used for now, 2) what the building was originally built for, 3)
review based on the scale of the building’s scale/placement on the lot and size of the grounds,
and 4) no change to the guidelines. When considering these proposed changes, note what
buildings are being grouped together and if those buildings should be reviewed with the same
guidelines. These four categories will be explored after the chart. Later in this report, they are
referred to as “major categories.”
Below is chart of properties for the commission to consider. The options discussed later in the
report reference the columns to the right of the chart.
What: Location Built as: Used As: Scale:
Police Station 301 E
Capitol
Institutional - Police
Station
Institutional Commercial
Paragon
Building
311 E
Capitol
Commercial Institutional Commercial
Legion Post 315 E
Capitol
Institutional Institutional Commercial
Trapnall Hall 423 E
Capitol
Residential - Single
Family
Institutional Residential -
large lot
Curran Hall 615 E
Capitol
Residential - Single
Family
Institutional Residential -
large lot
Lucky & Diner 314 E 6th Commercial Commercial Commercial
Lutheran
Church
314 E 8th Institutional -
Church/classrooms and
2 residences
Institutional Institutional
Terry Mansion 411 E 7th Residential - Single
Family
Institutional Residential -
large lot
Kramer
Elementary
715
Sherman
Institutional - School Residential Institutional -
large lot
Cumberland
Towers
311 E 8th Residential - Apartments Residential Residential –
large lot
Commercial
block
400-402 E
9th
Commercial Commercial Commercial
Fire Station 524 E 9th Institutional - Fire
Station
Institutional Institutional
14 of 19
St. Edwards
Church
821
Sherman
Institutional - Church,
convent, school,
residence
Institutional Institutional
Knights of
Columbus
215 E 9th Institutional- hall Commercial Commercial
Commercial
Block
901 Rock /
407 E 9th
Commercial Commercial Commercial
Arkansas Arts
Center
501 E 9th Institutional - Arts center Institutional Institutional –
large lot
Arsenal
Building
503 E 9th Institutional - Arsenal Institutional Institutional –
large lot
MacArthur
Park
9th,
commerce,
McMath
Institutional - Arsenal
grounds
Institutional Institutional -
large lot
Red
Crown/Fashion
Park Cleaners
1101
Cumberland
Commercial - Water
Bottling Company
Commercial Commercial
Teacher
retirement
1200
Commerce
Residential - Apartments Residential Residential –
large lot
Law School
Dorms
1016
McGowan
Residential - Apartments Residential Institutional
UAMS Hospital
/ law School
1215
McMath
Institutional - Hospital Institutional Institutional –
large lot
East Side
School
1401 Scott /
1400
Cumberland
Institutional - School Residential Institutional -
large lot
Rockefeller
School
700 E 17th Institutional - School Institutional Institutional –
large lot
Many houses
and apartment
building on
single lots
Residential Residential Residential
Houses
converted to
office space
Residential Commercial Residential
Option One: Review changes on what the building is used for now.
If the Guidelines divided the uses as to what they were used as now, the following major
categories would emerge. Those being used as Commercial would be the Lucky 7 Diner, the
commercial blocks in the 400 block of 9th and the Fashion Park Cleaners would be reviewed
the same under the Commercial section. The Residential section would be Kramer School and
Eastside School apartments; the Law School Dorms; the apartment towers of Cumberland
Towers and the Teacher Retirement apartments; and all other single and multifamily buildings
would be reviewed the same under the Residential section. The rest would be Institutional
uses. The guidelines would treat all of these applications in these three major categories,
instead of the two we have now (Commercial and everything else.) If a building has changed
15 of 19
uses, would the new guidelines fit? Does Eastside School need the same guidelines as a single
family house?
Option Two: Review the changes on what the building was built for originally.
With this option, the major categories would be a follows: The Paragon Building, the
commercial blocks in the 400 block of 9th and the Fashion Park Cleaners would be reviewed as
Commercial. The institutional uses would be the schools converted to apartments, museums,
fire/police stations, and fraternal organizations which would be reviewed the same under the
Institutional section. The apartment buildings (including towers) single family homes, dorms,
Trapnall and Curran Halls and the Terry Mansion would be reviewed the same under the
Residential section. Should the Cumberland Towers be reviewed by same standard as a single
family house? Should the police station be held to the same standard as MacArthur Park?
Option Three: Review the changes based on the scale of the buildings/grounds.
Commercial buildings typically sit on the front property line, are most if not all of the entire width
of the property, and have the architectural style of 19th or 20th Century commercial structures.
The Police Station / Paragon building, the commercial blocks on E 9th, the Legion Post, Knights
of Columbus, and Fashion Park Cleaners would be reviewed under the major category
“Commercial Scale” standards. The next group of buildings would be all churches, the Fire
Station, Law school dorms, schools converted to housing, MacArthur Park, the Arts Center and
the Law School. These buildings have various architectural styles, but have mass of building in
common. These properties also have the largest front lawns and a larger footprint to lot ratio.
These would be reviewed under the major category “Large Scale” Standards. Buildings built as
residential houses, houses converted to office uses, and small scale apartments will be
reviewed under the “Small Scale” standards.
Option Four – do nothing.
Within the current Guidelines, the “Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation”, in Section IV deals with
all structures in the district, even though the language states “house” in several locations. If that
word were switched to “building” or “structure”, there would not be a question that it related to all
buildings in the districts.
Section V. Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions and Detached New Construction is
written to address all buildings in the district. There could be another graphic showing
commercial or institutional uses at the end of new Construction of primary and secondary
buildings. The graphics are geared toward s the residential instead of all types of uses.
Section VI, Design Guidelines for Site Design needs to be revamped. Landscape Features
(Sidewalks, Planned Green Space, Fences and Retaining Walls), Lighting, parking areas,
mechanical systems and signage should be adjusted to the different categories as spelled out in
the four options above. Fences could be of a different scale for the large scale properties
and/or institutional uses. In the parking section on page 69, is one of the two spots in the
Guidelines where the word institutional is used. There it is lumped in with commercial and office
uses. This language works for all of those uses, but may need to be repeated in the different
sections. Other things need to be revised in this section, but they are not discerned at this time.
Section VIII. Guidelines for Commercial Structures works well for the traditional commercial
structures as found along 9th Street. Although, the guidelines assume all of the districts
commercial structures are two story buildings, which in fact they are not. Another graphic needs
16 of 19
to be added to address one story buildings. Signs are addressed here, but are limited to the
late 19th and early 20th century buildings based on the text.
One suggestion would be to leave sections I-IV as they are now with changing the references to
buildings or structures instead of houses. Section VI, Design Guidelines for Site Design would
have three subsections with the different categories (addressing parking, for example, under
each category) or address each category in the text as it is shown now (addressing the three
major categories under parking with a side by side caparison.) Section VIII Guidelines for
Commercial Structures would be melded into Sections VI and IV as needed. Section VI,
Guidelines for Relocation and Demolition would remain as is.
Another suggestion is to place all of the treatment of original materials and individual building
elements in the same section (Section IV). Section V Design Guidelines for Additions and
Alterations would address all three major categories. A new section would be added to address
new construction of all major categories. Section VI Design guidelines for Site Design would
also address the three major categories.
COMMISSION ACTION: February 11, 2013
Brian Minyard made a presentation of the update to the Commission and covered the various
options. He summarized the staff report and what problems arise. Option 1 was to review
buildings as they are used now. Option 2 is to review the changes on what the building was
built for originally. Option 3 is to review the changes based on the scale of the
buildings/grounds. Option 4 is to do nothing. He asked for some guidance from the Commission
on how to organize the information or changes to the text to give back to the Commission.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower was not convinced that we needed to do a lot---- maintaining a
feeling for the overall district. She was sorry that Commissioner Mark Brown was not there and
wanted to hear his thoughts. She is not sure that Options 1 and 2 may not be germane to
keeping the feel of the district. Option 3 may make sense based on scale. You may need a
higher fence because you are fencing a larger area.
A discussion centered on surveys of other towns and what they do. Mr. Minyard stated that he
had polled the state CLG partners and posted it on the NAPC listserv. He replied to
Commissioner Wiedower that if we handled it this way, we would be breaking new ground.
Commissioner Wiedower said that if the only instance was the fence at MacArthur Park, it was
not necessary to rewrite the Guidelines. Mr. Minyard stated that the Guidelines were just that,
guidelines. If the Commission felt there was a reason for a different height, they would state so
in the deliberations.
Commissioner Randy Ripley stated he had similar thoughts as Commissioner Wiedower.
Options 1 and 2 create some restriction that would be on some properties, he would want all
decisions to be equitable. He stated he may lean towards doing nothing. In some cases, he
would look at the building as how it is used now, versus how it was used originally. Each case
would be different.
Commissioner Toni Johnson agreed with the two previous Commissioners. New Construction
will be the hardest cases. She wants to look closer on infill structures because they are having
more variety coming in front of the Commission. She commented when she read the
Guidelines, sometimes there was not enough guidance in the text. Commissioner Ripley stated
that developers want to build market driven products which puts a quandary for contemporary
infill.
17 of 19
Commissioner BJ Bowen sees more people coming in for fencing, higher for security, but not
enough to go by in Guidelines. He wants more text for fencing in Guidelines.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that the Fire Station and the state owned law school already
have 6’ fences in some areas. She wondered if rewriting the Guidelines was a valid use of time.
Or do we just look at fencing? She would like to hear Commissioner Brown’s comments on this.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey is leaning towards Option 3 or Option 4. He continued that
fences were subjective based on who and when they were approved. Commissioner Wiedower
stated that fences come and go, but the buildings were the important thing.
Mr. Minyard clarified that when he said Option 4 was do nothing; he was being a bit simplistic.
In Section 4, the word house may need to be changed to the word building. In the Legal
section, it has been discussed to put the state of emergency clause in there, there are some
typos in the document, and two pages out of order. These would be considered as cleanup, not
a total rewrite. On the fencing item, it may be as simple as adding text to the effect of different
scales of buildings and grounds may dictate different scales of fencing. It was decided that the
scale of the fencing versus open space would be the talk for the next hearing. Commissioner
Ripley commented on the space between the building and the fence made a difference in the
height of the fence.
Commissioner Wiedower asked to continue the discussion next month on fencing and scale.
Mr. Minyard said that he would take the text of the Guidelines and mark up the changes.
Commissioner Boaitey asked about the time limits on COAs and if it needed to be added to the
Guideline discussion. Debra Weldon asked if it was most appropriate in the bylaws. It was
discussed if we needed to attach the bylaws to the applications. Maybe it would be included in
the instruction pages.
STAFF UPDATE: March 11, 2013
Staff updated the Guidelines using a modified Option 4. Minor changes were made to make
Section IV Design Guidelines for Rehabilitation read to include all buildings, not just houses.
Included in your packets are PDFs of the modified sheets out of the guidelines. The changes
are in bold red letters. The majority of the changes are from the word “house” to the word
“building”. Occasionally, there was a misspelled word that has been corrected. There are
additional sentences concerning fencing and streetscape at commercial buildings.
There is notation of needing additional photos on one page. Not shown is the following changes
that need to be made and updated. Appendix A Map of all Historic districts, Appendix B listing
of the National Register Districts, Appendix E COA application package, Appendix F Sample
COA, Appendix G Sample COC, Overall map of Mac Arthur Park Historic District,
Acknowledgements page, Table of Contents, and Cover.
The pages will be renumbered with the forward in roman numerals which means the PDFs that
are in this package are numbered 8 pages less than in the current version of the Guidelines,
i.e.; Page 80 in the current version is now page 72 in the proposed version.
18 of 19
COMMISSION ACTION: March 11, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation to the Commission with the updated changes
going with the modified Option 4 replacing the word “houses” with the word “building”. All of the
pages with changes were sent to the Commissioners. They discussed the commercial
streetscape edits and fencing edits. They discussed overall fence requirements citywide versus
what is required in MacArthur Park. It was stated by both staff that the Historic District
commission cannot grant variances to the City code. When the applicant needs a variance from
the city code, the HDC makes a recommendation to the governing body. The HDC can make a
COA that is more restrictive than the code, but cannot grant variances.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked about the heights for different types of fences. The
guidelines state 36” for wood fences but do not specifically state 36” for iron or other types of
fences. Mr. Minyard said that he would work on that.
Commissioner Vanlandingham asked if a summary of heights on fences; a quick answer on top
of paragraph; could be added to the top of the different sections of the guidelines. He asked to
check on the fencing and other sections.
Mr. Minyard continued that he changed the section on Commercial sidewalks on old page 78 of
the guidelines. Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about the list of commercial buildings that
was listed in the Staff report when it comes to zoning. Mr. Minyard explained the zoning
category of O-2 Office and Institutional and how that affects the MacArthur Park Historic District.
The park itself is zoned PR – Parks and Recreation and related the fence and use requirements
of that zoning.
Mr. Minyard answered that there needed to be some additional edits on the Guidelines that will
need to be done before the final vote.
There was a discussion on whether the timeline of projects should be in the Guidelines or on
application. It was decided that it could be included on the application.
Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, spoke about the emergency waiver conditions and
whether they should be included in the Guidelines’ Legal Authority section. The emergency
conditions would vary concerning the incident so it would be difficult to predict what the state of
emergency would entail by mayoral proclamation. She is concerned that it could be
misconstrued what a state of emergency means and the extent geographically and for what
review items or procedures would be included. She suggested that it be left as an
administrative staff procedure. After discussion, neglectful maintenance does not constitute a
state of emergency.
IM
V. Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Send COC list to the Commission.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens present at this time.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower commented to Rhea Roberts that she was appreciative of QQA's
efforts for conversation advocating for preservation of the houses on Cantrell Road.
Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:50 p.m.
Attest:
air
Secretary /Staff
19 of 19
Date
Date
`(- Y-- l