HDC_09 09 2013Page 1 of 16
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, September 9, 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: Rhea Roberts
Tim Zimmerman
Linda Fordyce
John Fordyce
Anncha Briggs
Ron Ross
Greg Hart
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey to approve the minutes of July 8, 2013 as
submitted. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the minutes were approved with a vote
of 5 ayes and 2 absent (Brown and Vanlandingham).
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 16
DATE: September 9, 2013
APPLICANT: Parks and Recreation, Ron Ross
ADDRESS: 1201 Commerce
COA REQUEST: Deck
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1201 Commerce. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 6 and adjacent street
to east, Block 154, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
The survey states: “This craftsman style firehouse has
shallow roof slopes, multiple dormers, half timbering at
gables and multiple casement windows. The use was
changed when a new fire station was constructed. It was
built around 1917. It was operational as a fire station
until the mid-1960s.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This property has a “Conservation Easement” on the
exterior of the building that has been deeded to the State.
AHPP, through its Conservation Easement Coordinator,
monitors all improvements to the exterior of the building. Staff has been in contact with AHPP
and has attended a meeting with the Hostel representatives, Parks, City Finance Department,
and the State AHPP coordinators to work out what can be changed on the building.
This application is a result of an enforcement action. The construction of the deck was not
approved by the Commission at the March 12, 2012 hearing. The removal of the loading dock
in this location was approved.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
In August, 1999, permission was given to do roof repair to repair tornado damage.
On April 20, 2011, a Certificate of Compliance was given to repair the brackets and exposed
rafters on the building and some roofing repair and skylight with a Certificate of Compliance.
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. A.
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
Page 3 of 16
On March 12, 2012, A Certificate of Appropriateness was given for window replacement,
masonry repair, addition of a fire safety door, addition of stucco to the building, signage and
lighting, fencing around the ac units, and removal of the loading dock. This COA did not include
the construction of the deck in question.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
From the March 2012 staff report:
Removal Of Dock And Addition Of Deck In The Proposal And Written Analysis Of The
Application Based Off Of Intent And Guidelines Section:
“This is a non-original loading dock and is believed to have been added when Parks and
Recreation had a commercial kitchen in the building. The dock is in bad repair and is a
safety hazard to the users because of lack of handrails and deteriorating wood.
The new deck is to be used by the hostel clientele. AHPP and HDC Staff are
encouraging a different design of the deck so that it is not visually connected or
physically connected to the building. NO handrail specifications have been provided as
the floor plan is still in review.
Staff is prepared to work with the applicant, Building codes, and the AHPP to govern
exact size and placement and to select handrails that will meet fire codes and is the
most sympathetic to the structure and site.
This is shown at the end of the report in the “Photo Sheets” with the applicants
numbering system of page 11.”
During the discussion of the item, there were questions on the railing, design and if it was
needed at all; if it was to be stained or painted; and whether it was to be attached to the
building. There were statements on needing more information on the deck. Also discussed was
deferring part of the item or amending the application to remove part of the item. After
discussion,
“Chairman Vanlandingham told the applicant that if the Commission has issues with one
of the portions of the item, and it was denied, the applicant would have to come back to
the Commission with a substantially different application. The offered the opportunity to
amend the application. Mr. Hart amended his application to tear down the deck and
come back at a later date to get approval of the deck plan. He did want to keep the fire
doors in the application.”
The motion was as follows:
“Commissioner Ripley made a motion to approve the application as amended (removal
of deck construction but including deck demolition) with the understanding that the doors
be handled by Staff and AHPP. Commissioner Wiedower seconded. The motion
passed with 5 ayes, 1 abstain (Hendrix) and 1 absent (Peters).”
Currently, the application is for the deck as built. The deck has been constructed of “Trex” or
similar product which is composed of reclaimed wood fiber and recycled plastic. The material
does not have as much tensile strength as wood; therefore it requires more support so that the
horizontal pieces do not sag. Therefore, this deck has more joists than a normal wood deck
would have although the joists are not visible. The part of the deck that is visible that is different
than a wood deck would be is the spacers between the handrail and the deck floor. This is
Page 4 of 16
shown and labeled in the photo below. These spacers are different than the drawings submitted
for this project as the spacers are much more pronounced.
The height of the railing is also different than the submitted drawings. The posts are 48” above
the deck floor as specified, but the actual railing is at 36” instead of 42”. This makes the posts
extend an additional 12” above the top of the rails instead of the specified 6” as shown on the
drawings. This has a different look than the drawings specified.
The top of the deck is approximately 24” above the ground at the southeast corner. The deck is
not attached to the building as prescribed by AHPP under the façade easement. This deck is
visible from Commerce Street and Pulaski County Lane.
Built in seating has been completed on the east side only. The seating on the south side is yet
to be constructed.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
1. Reduce height of posts to be within 6” of top of railing.
COMMISSION ACTION: July 8, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, reported to the Commission that the notices had not been mailed to the
adjacent property owners, theref ore the item could not be heard at this meeting. There was
nobody at the meeting to neither represent the application nor explain why the notices were not
mailed. Staff recommended that his item be deferred for one month.
Chairman Chris Vanlandingham asked about standard enforcement procedures in the historic
district. There was a brief discussion concerning this. He stated the actions of the Hostel group
and City Parks does not show respect for the people in the district and does not help the City
enforce on others. Commissioner Wiedower agreed with his comment.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the applicant. Mr. Minyard stated that Parks has leased
the building to the hostel group but City Parks does all of the drawings for them. Ron Ross, a
city Parks employee, represents them in the meetings. The deferral does count against them.
There was a discussion on the deck and if it was attached to the building and if it violated the
conservation easement. Mr. Minyard stated that it was not attached to the building and did not
violate the conservation easement according to AHPP.
The item was deferred to the August 2013 meeting.
STAFF UPDATE: August 12, 2013
The bench has been completed along the southern side of the deck as shown on the plans
since the last report. Staff recommendation remains unchanged.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
Reduce height of posts to be within 6” of top of railing.
Page 5 of 16
COMMISSION ACTION: September 9, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item. Commissioner Julie Wiedower
asked what the final size of the deck was. The size submitted originally was different than the
current application. Mr. Minyard said that he would have the applicant answer that question for
the Commission. The application is to approve as built either with or without conditions.
Ron Ross, Parks and Recreation, spoke to the Commission and apologized for not having the
proper permit for the deck. He said that the applicants has lost track of the requirements for the
deck. It is a 20 x 20 foot deck. The omission for this is his fault.
Commissioner Randy Ripley asked him if they were through with the deck. Mr. Ross said that
they may want to add benches and skirt the bottom of the deck.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if all of the items on the previously approved COA been
completed? Mr. Ross said that the signage was not installed and the fence around the AC units
had not been installed. All of the rest has been completed. Commissioner Ripley asked if t he
deck was under the current building permit. Mr. Ross responded yes. Greg Hart, board
member of the Hostel, said that the Arkansas Workforce provided volunteer labor for the project.
Commissioner Kwadjo Boaitey asked if the Commission has approved Trex wood product
before. Mr. Minyard responded that if it was used in someone’s back yard, the Commission
would not know. A substance like this was used on Curran Hall on the back porch, but not the
front. Commissioner Boaitey asked if Trex was the original material sought or was it changed.
Mr. Ross discussed different products and settled on this product for durability.
Greg Hart, a board member for Hostelling Arkansas, spoke in favor of the application. He
stated that they had originally looked at a larger deck. Arkansas Workforce wanted to help fund
the deck and provide labor to construct it. A time restraint was there for installation, so the
Hostel took the opportunity. They looked for durability on materials and got a discount on the
materials from the supplier.
Commissioner Wiedower asked why the posts were left so tall. Mr. Hart said that the post
height on the deck because of a decision by the Workforce team. Commissioner Wiedower said
it was not a restriction per se but when you look at decks and railings all over town, most posts
are shorter. Commissioner Ripley asked if they were 6x6 posts or did something slip over the
4x4’s? Mr. Hart commented that it was a sleeve over the post. He continued about the height
of the deck.
Commissioner Wiedower asked how long it would be until they finished on the total project. Mr.
Hart said that there was painting and AC. They have paid for most of the work that is
outstanding. Commissioner Ripley asked about the finish on the deck, will it be stained?
Commissioner Boaitey asked about the maintenance of the material. Mr. Hart said that it would
not be stained, and the only maintenance is just cleaning it off. Commissioner Boaitey asked
how long does it last. Commissioner Ripley said forever. Commissioner Ripley continued that it
was not difficult to cut the posts down. Commissioner Wiedower asked if the Hostel would
voluntarily take the posts down. John Fordyce asked what the reason was for asking the posts
to be shortened. Commissioner W iedower said that it was aesthetic. She continued that the
posts were glaring with the extra height and historically posts were not that much taller than the
railings. Mr. Ross and Mr. Hart said that they would amend their application to reduce the
height of the posts. Vice Chair Antoinette Johnson mentioned that the old drawings show the
posts 4” above the railings.
Page 6 of 16
Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to approve the COA with the inclusion of an
amendment to reduce the height of the posts to within 6” of the railing. Commissioner Ripley
seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 6 ayes and 1 absent (Vanlandingham).
Page 7 of 16
DATE: September 9, 2013
APPLICANT: Tim Zimmerman, First Choice
ADDRESS: 200 E 13th Street
COA REQUEST: Signage
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 200 E 13th Street. The
property’s legal description is “Lot 6 and the south 1/5 of
Lot 5, Blok 22, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
This office building was built in 1955. The 2006 survey
form states: “This standard 20th Century Commercial
structure has expressed columns and beams with solid
and transparent walls independent of structure. Built for
Price Chiropractic in 1955.” The 1988 survey counts it as
Non-Contributing, but the 2007 survey shows it as
Contributing.
This application is a result of an enforcement action.
Signage was installed without a COA for the signage and
without a sign permit. The signs are all 2’x8’ long and
are posted on three sides of the building.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On May 5, 2002, an administrative approval was issued to install a new roof.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
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.
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 8 of 16
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 (already installed) are aluminum signs with vinyl lettering. The signs are 2’ by 8’ each
and are mounted on the brick on the south, west and north side of the buildings. These signs
comply with the sign ordinance. Staff believes that aluminum sign material is appropriate of r the
age of this structure.
Sign Scott Street (west) elevation
13th Street (south) elevation North elevation
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
2. Obtaining sign permits for each sign.
Page 9 of 16
COMMISSION ACTION: September 9, 2013
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a brief presentation of the item.
Tim Zimmerman, of First Choice, spoke for the application. He stated that the signs are
important for his business. Commissioner Julie Wiedower welcomed him to the district. Mr.
Zimmerman said that he had joined SOMA and loved his neighbors. Commissioner Randy
Ripley asked how long he had been in that location. Mr. Zimmerman stated since December.
There was a question about the lighting of the signs.
Commissioner Wiedower asked about the hours of operation. The response was 7-4 Monday –
Friday.
There was a motion made by Commissioner Wiedower to approve the application as submitted
with staff recommendations and was seconded by BJ Bowen. The motion passed with a vote of
6 ayes and 1 absent (Vanlandingham).
Page 10 of 16
DATE: September 9, 2013
APPLICANT: Brian Duncan, Digital Print and Imaging
ADDRESS: 902 South Cumberland
COA REQUEST: Signage
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 902 South
Cumberland. The property’s legal description is “Lot 9-12,
Block 25, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
This building was built around 1960. The 2006 survey
form states: “this commercial building has international
style influences with shallow roof coping, ribboned
horizontal banding of contrasting brick and window set
flush with the exterior. This was renovated in 2002.” It is
considered a "Non-Contributing Structure" to the
MacArthur Park Historic District in both the 1988 and
2006 survey.
This application is a result of an enforcement action.
Signage was installed on the Cumberland Street
windows without a COA by the HDC. The project
includes signage in the windows as installed before, new
signage on the 9th and Cumberland Street sides.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On January 26, 1999 administrative approval was given for landscape renovations.
On December 3, 1998, a COA was approved and issued to Knights of Columbus to replace
windows, close the 9th street entrance and install an overhead door in the gym. A portion of
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Two.
Location of Project
Page 11 of 16
this work was completed (new windows) but the rest was not started. The COA is considered
void with new ownership.
Existing 9th Street elevation ca. 2006 Existing Cumberland St elevation ca. 2006
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES: The application has three parts: Window signage, 9th Street entrance sign
above door and Cumberland Street sign above door.
The guidelines state on page 78:
6. 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 window signage was the subject of the enforcements issue.
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 the 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.
Page 12 of 16
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.
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, most of the signs in the windows are Incidental Signs.
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 would be the signs as shown in the windows with the
exception of the business name and logo. All incidental signage over 20 square feet would not
be in compliance with the city sign ordinance. The windows are estimated to be slightly over 5’
wide and 5’ tall. That would be 25 square feet per window. One window would be 25 square
feet in area, which would be the entirety of the allowable incidental signage for the premises.
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 wall signs over the doors are well under the 10% rule.
From Sec. 36-553.(a)(3).
Signs that were installed without COA. They have been removed.
Page 13 of 16
Where a building is on a corner or has more than one (1) main street frontage, one (1)
wall sign and one (1) additional freestanding sign will be allowed on the additional
frontage, not to exceed the size of other wall and freestanding signs
On this application, the sign on 9th Street and the one on Cumberland Street have street
frontage and would be in compliance with the sign code. The proposed changes to the signs
over the doors will be the same materials and attached to the building the same way the
previous signs are.
Proposed signage on 9th Street
Page 14 of 16
Staff believes that the fixed signage (over the 9th and Cumberland doors) 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 if they are applied to every window on a facade. Staff
believes that the incidental signs should be limited to two windows of the building, not on the
same façade. Staff acknowledges that if more than 20 square feet of window incidental signage
is installed, it would require another hearing for a variance to the sign ordinance.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
3. Obtaining sign permits for each sign.
4. Submit application to appropriate board for public hearing if more than 20 square feet of
incidental signs are used.
Proposed signage on Cumberland Street
Page 15 of 16
COMMISSION ACTION: September 9, 2013
The applicant was not present for the hearing, and under the bylaws, an application cannot be
heard without a representative present. A motion was made to defer to the next regular
meeting. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 1 absent (Vanlandingham) and 1 recusal
(Brown).
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff is working on Leonard Hollinger at 11th adn Commerce and 314 E 6th. Staff is doing
research on the gas station on 9th Street and the freeway to see exactly what was approved.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens present at this time. There was one citizen at the meeting to see how
things were done because he thought he would be coming before the Commission at a later
date.
V. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 5:54 p.m.
Attest:
Chair
�J,�k --,
Se retary /Staff
Date
- H -i?
Date
Page 16 of 16