HDC_05 13 20131
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, May 13, 2013, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Julie Wiedower
Randy Ripley
BJ Bowen
Toni Johnson
Mark Brown
Kwadjo Boaitey
Members Absent: Chris Vanlandingham
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Leonard Hollinger
Benjia Hollinger
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner BJ Bowen to approve the minutes of April 8, 2013 as
submitted. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote
of 5 ayes, 1 absent (Vanlandingham) and 1 abstain (Wiedower).
Notice requirements were met on the application to be heard tonight.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
IV. Certificates of Appropriateness
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
2
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. 1.
DATE: May 13, 2013
APPLICANT: Leonard & Benjia Hollinger
ADDRESS: 420 E 11th
COA REQUEST: Approval of Vinyl Fence
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 420 E 11th. The
property’s legal description is “Lots 7, 8 and S 1/2 of 9,
Block 58, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
The house was constructed ca 1950. The 2006 survey
form states: “This hipped roof version of the Modern
Ranch style includes a classic revival porch and an
attached carport.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District. In the
December 2, 2009 State Review Board meeting,
Additional Documentation was reviewed to change the
period of significance through 1960 for the District. That
was approved by the NPS on January 21, 2010.
This application is an enforcement issue. The application
is to seek approval for a vinyl fence that was installed
earlier this year after a COA was approved for a fence on September 10, 2012.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On September 10, 2012, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger for fence replacement and
construction of a retaining wall along 11th Street.
On October 14, 2010, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to replace his original windows
with vinyl windows.
On February 2, 1989, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to remove one story residence
and construct new one story residence and rear guest house. Only the rear guest house was
built of this plan.
On June 23, 1988, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to demolish a structure.
On October 26, 1981, a COA was issued to Leonard Hollinger to erect an open carport canopy
on the west side of the house.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Location of Project
3
Existing view from southeast from Sept. 2012 Existing east elevation from Sept. 2012
Existing condition of fence from Sept. 2012 Existing condition of fence from Sept. 2012
Fence by carport on south side from April 2013 Fence along Commerce Street from April 2013
4
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
On page 66 and 67 of the Guidelines, it states the following
3. Fences and Retaining Walls:
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 house.
Cast iron fences were common through the Victorian period and should be
retained and maintained. Wrought iron and bent wire fences are also historic.
Wood picket fences may be located in front, side, or rear yards, generally
following property lines. They should be no taller than three feet (36”) tall;
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
house.
Wood board privacy fences should be located in rear yards. They should be no
taller than six feet (72”), of flat boards in a single row (not stockade or
shadowbox), and of a design compatible with the structure. The privacy fence
should be set back from the front façade of the structure at least halfway
between the front and back walls.
Chain-link fences may be located only in rear yards, where not readily visible
from the street, and should be coated dark green or black. Screening with plant
material is recommended.
Fences should not have brick, stone, or concrete piers or posts unless based on
pictorial or physical evidence. Free-standing walls of brick, stone, or concrete
are not appropriate.
New retaining landscape walls are discouraged in front yards. Certain front
yards that are in close proximity to the sidewalk may feature new walls that
match the materials of the building and be
consistent with historic walls in the
neighborhood. Landscaping walls should
match the materials of the building and be
consistent with historic walls in the
neighborhood.
The reason that this application is back before
the Commission is that the owner installed a
fence that the Commission did not approve. Mr.
Hollinger stated in the hearing of September 10,
2012 that he wanted to make his home more
maintenance free. The photo he provided to the
Staff with his application is at the right. It is of a
Proposed fence from September 2012 hearing
5
wood fence with the lattice above. He interpreted this to mean that he could install a vinyl
fence. However, the staff report states “a lattice panel above the typical wood privacy fence”.
Below is the text from the Staff report for the September 10, 2012 hearing:
FENCE:
The proposed fence will feature a lattice panel above the typical wood privacy
fence. The height of the fence will vary between 6’-4” and 6’-8” because of the
slope of the land. The fence will start at the northeast corner of the house and
extend northward to the property line. There will be a drive gate cut into the
fence at the curb cut. This fence is very visible from the Commerce Street side.
This fence is located in the rear yard, but has street visibility because of the
corner lot.
Research into fencing types in the 1950’s have not been conclusive as to what
the prevalent style of fence was with a ranch house. At the end of this report are
some images from a Sunset Book on fences published in 1951. However, since
it is uncertain what the prevalent style should be, it is safer to install a simpler
fence. A replacement of the fence as is, would be in Staff’s opinion, style neutral.
This application will not be required to go to the Board of Adjustment for a fence
height variance.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: May 13, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff made a presentation of the item. He stated that this was an enforcement
issue. He read from the staff report the last paragraph on page 3 of 6 of the staff report. He
continued that he had the original photo from the September 2012 hearing if the Commission
wanted to see it again. The one comment from the neighborhood was the original call that
reported it to staff. Staff recommendation is denial on this application. He asked if there were
any questions of Staff before the applicant came forward.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked Staff how long the fence took to install. Mr. Minyard said
that it took at least two days, but they would need to ask the applicant that question. Vice Chair
Toni Johnson asked if the applicant got a copy of the staff report from September 10 before that
meeting. She asked if the letter stated they had approval for a typical wood fence with lattice
above. He stated that that was included in the Staff report and it did not say approval as it was
only a staff report at that time. The photo that was submitted was of a wood fence. The
recommendation was to approve a wood fence as submitted by photo. Vice Chair Johnson
asked Staff if the applicant received any written communication after the vote was taken on
September 10, 2012. Mr. Minyard said that he did. Mr. Minyard responded that they get two
different things. He had in his file a letter from September 13, 2012 that was sent to inform the
applicant of the vote count and that it passed. He also received his Certificate of
Appropriateness. The text on the COA was “Project to be completed as amended and as
approved by the Historic District Commission in the September 10, 2012 hearing.” Vice Chair
Johnson stated that he would know to go back to the staff report for that hearing for any
explanation.
6
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey wanted to clarify that the first Staff knew about this was when it
was reported to Staff. He wanted to know if there was a lot of discussion between the informant
and Staff. Mr. Minyard stated that the informant just wanted to confirm what had been approved
by the Commission. The conversation was fairly short.
Mr. Leonard Hollinger, of 420 East 11th Street, the applicant, spoke to the Commission. He
explained why the fence was built as it was. He asked that the Commission approve the fence
as built. He said that there were several factors that were considered: privacy, maintenance
free, and long lasting. He surveyed the District and did not find a fence that fulfilled the three
factors above. He chose to install a vinyl fence that fit these three factors. He said that there
are many wooden fences in the district but they would not meet the standards as set.
He maintained that the fence blends with the house and guest house. He stated that he did not
build the fence in defiance of the Commission but was under the impression that the long lasting
maintenance free allowed him to go with a vinyl fence.
Vice Chair Johnson asked why he submitted a photo of a wood fence in his original application.
He said that he did not find any vinyl fences in the district. She then asked if he knew he was
going to install a vinyl fence at the time of his original hearing. He stated “No”.
Commissioner Wiedower said that she was sorry that we are in this situation. She stated that
she was worried about how a possible failure to communicate on the vinyl fence or a wood
fence in the hearing could have happened. She said that it was never in her mind that they
were talking about a vinyl fence. She remembered conversations on the height, the lattice on
top, and other issues that night. The style is the same as the proposed wood fence, but the
fence has problems following the guidelines. She stated that this fence was a problem for her.
Commissioner Randy Ripley stated that a reason that Mr. Hollinger did not find any vinyl fences
within the district is that the word vinyl raises red flags in the hearing. And that is why he did not
find any vinyl fences in the historical area. He commented that the Historic District Commission
was in a tough spot because it is an expensive fence and the Historic District Commission could
be deemed worthless if this fence was approved. Even though the Commission takes items on
a case by case basis, he said that it would be difficult to not approve vinyl fences or any other
material that was not appropriate in the future. Mr. Hollinger asked if Commissioner Ripley had
looked at other wood fences. He commented that he had and he does not disagree on his
motive on the maintenance issues. But the Commission is here for historically appropriate
fences.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that the fence has a lot of visibility being across from the Arts
Center. Mr. Hollinger agreed and said that it complements the area.
Commissioner Mark Brown related a personal experience with another commission on wood
versus fiberglass columns. He had replaced wood columns that were rotting with fiberglass
columns of the same style. The guidelines called for a similar material. He thought when they
were painted, you would not tell the difference, but he was denied the use of the fiberglass
columns. In the case of this fence, if the vinyl fence were painted, as his columns were, would it
look like a wood fence? In his opinion, it would still look like a painted vinyl wood fence. The
charge of the HDC is to protect historic nature of the neighborhood.
Mr. Hollinger stated that a half brick house doesn’t really fit either.
7
There was a discussion about how the motion was to be worded. Mr. Minyard stated that all
motions were made in the affirmative, but if a Commissioner wanted to deny the application,
simply vote no.
A motion to approve as installed the vinyl fence at 420 E 11th Street as submitted was made by
Commissioner Boaitey and it was seconded by Commissioner Brown. The motion was denied
with 0 ayes, 6 noes and 1 absent (Vanlandingham).
Commissioner Ripley asked what Mr. Hollinger’s options at this point were. Debra Weldon, of
the City Attorney’s office, said that he could appeal to Circuit Court within 30 days.
Commissioner Ripley said that he thought it went before the City Board. Ms. Weldon stated that
the Commission was quasi-judicial and repeated that it went to Circuit Court. Mr. Hollinger
stated that he would win in court with a jury of his peers.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if the motion included all or part of the fence that was along
11th Street. Mr. Minyard stated that he assumed that the motion “as installed” included the
entire vinyl fence. Ms. Weldon agreed with Mr. Minyard and stated that the application did not
specify a particular part of the fence, so therefore it included the entire fence.
Mr. Hollinger asked that if he did nothing, what would happen. Ms. Weldon said that it would be
an enforcement issue and that it would be taken to court. He asked on what authority the city
would do that. Mr. Hollinger restated that he believed that he would win in court but
understands that the Commission needs to save face. He did say that he would be willing to
see if there was a way to get out of this situation. He apologized for putting the Commission in
this position, but at the time he did not think he was putting the Commission in that situation.
There was a discussion on who called in the complaint. Commissioner Wiedower stated that
she did not believe that he installed the fence maliciously. Commissioner Ripley concurred with
Commissioner Wiedower.
Ms. Weldon said that the exclusive remedy is to appeal to Circuit Court within 30 days.
Vice Chair Johnson said that she was sorry about the situation but was glad that people were
interested in maintaining their properties, but the Commission’s charge was to follow the
guidelines.
Commissioner Wiedower was hopeful that the Commission could avoid this situation in the
future.
8
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 aros e 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.
9
(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
10
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.
11
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 f or, 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
12
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 catagories,
instead of the two we have now (Commercial and everything else.) If a building has changed
13
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
14
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.
15
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.
16
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.
COMMISSION ACTION: April 8, 2013
Chairman Vanlandingham stated that this discussion will be deferred to the May 2013 hearing.
COMMISSION ACTION: May 13, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, asked if everybody got the new page 70 with the new photos on it. He
asked if everybody had a chance to look at the guidelines since he sent a complete copy with
color pages on the changed pages.
17
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if the change to only review things that are visible from the
right-of-way was included I the new Guidelines. She said that she did not find it. Debra Weldon
responded that it had been included in the ordinance revision, Ordinance # 20423.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that she had not had time to read the document page by page
and had asked that the item be deferred to the June 10, 2013 hearing. Commissioner BJ
Bowen made a motion to that effect and Commissioner Mark Brown seconded. The motion
passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent.
Map
V. Other Matters
Time Limits for COAs
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked about the time limits for COAs. He stated that the
guidelines have samples of COAs and instructions, if that changed what would happen to the
graphics of the instructions. Mr. Minyard stated that the graphics would be updated with a new
printing. Debra Weldon said that the Commission has not voted on the item, and that a vote
needs to be had on such. She continued that the bylaws were the appropriate venue to
implement a time limit on COAs. Staff said that it would be on the agenda in June 2013 to
discuss the time limits questions and then to approve it in July.
There was a discussion to approve the bylaws and the new guidelines at the same meeting in
July. A discussion on the June agenda would be appropriate.
Enforcement issues
We are currently working on Enforcement on the Deck on the Hostel. Staff will wait 30 days to
see if Mr. Hollinger has filed on his fence.
Certificates of Compliance
A flagpole was approved at the MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History. Another
application that you will see next month, there was a COC for a demolition of an out building.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if it was visible from Ninth Street. Mr. Minyard said it was
not visible from Ninth Street. He will have an application before you in June for his fence.
Handrails on steps located on 8th street were approved.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens present at this time.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:52 p.m.
Attest:"
Chair
Secretary /Staff
Date
Date