HDC_06 14 20101
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, June 14, 2010, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
I. Roll Call
Quorum was present being five (5) in number.
Members Present: Marshall Peters
Julie Wiedower
Randy Ripley
Loretta Hendrix
Chris Vanlandingham
Members Absent: none
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Margaret Brueggeman
Boyd Maher
II. Approval of Minutes
A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to approve the minutes of May 10, 2010
as submitted. Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham seconded and the minutes were approved
with a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent.
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. One.
DATE: June 14, 2010
APPLICANT: Margaret Brueggeman
ADDRESS: 1423 Commerce Street
COA
REQUEST: Replacement Vinyl Windows
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1423 Commerce
Street. The property’s legal description is Lot 6, Block
157 Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
This house was built around 1886 and has Craftsman
alterations at a later date. It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District in the
2008 and the 1988 survey. The architectural significance
in the 1978 survey is of a Priority II (I being the highest
and III being the lowest) and no Historical Significance or
Local significance.
This application is for six Vinyl Replacement Windows.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
No previous actions on this site were located with a search of the files.
PROPOSAL:
This proposal is to replace six original wood one over one windows with vinyl replacement
windows of the same size. The windows are located on the west portion of the house: two on
the northern side facade, three on the front western facade and one on the southern side façade
that faces Fifteenth Street. These windows would replace the windows in the westernmost two
rooms 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
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
The Guidelines state on page 52:
Windows should be preserved in their original location, size, and design with their original
materials and number of panes. Stained, leaded, beveled, or patterned glass, which is a
character-defining feature of a building, should not be removed. Windows should not be added
to the primary façade or to a secondary façade if easily visible. Windows should be repaired
rather than replaced. However, if replacement is necessary due to severe deterioration, the
replacement should match, as closely as possible, the original in materials and design.
Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Unless they originally
existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic
building.
The Commission has readdressed the section on replacement windows. The following section
will replace the last sentence.
… Replacement windows should not have snap-on or flush muntins. Wood clad windows may
be appropriate if the structure originally had wood windows. Wood clad windows are wood
construction windows with an outer coating of vinyl or metal that facilitates easier maintenance.
Windows of 100% vinyl are not appropriate in the historic district since they were not historically
installed in the structures. Unless they originally existed, jalousie, awning, and picture windows
and glass brick are inappropriate on an historic building.
These definitions will be added to page 113:
Window, clad: A wood window (frame and sashes of wood) that the exposed exterior surfaces
are sheathed with specially formed aluminum or extruded vinyl to facilitate easier maintenance.
Existing front western elevation Existing south side elevation
2008 Survey Photo 2008 Survey photo of northern facade
4
The cladding is on the exterior parts of the sashes, jambs, sills and head of the window. Also
known as a wood clad window.
Window, vinyl: A window whose frame and sashes are made from vinyl. Vinyl is a generic term
for modified PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride).
The Secretary of the Interior standards #6 states:
Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old in
design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement of
missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence.
The Commission discussed replacement windows in the Commission Hearing on January 11,
2010 in the Workshop item. It covered Storm Windows and Replacement Windows. A portion
of that report is included:
The topic of energy savings has again moved to the forefront of renovations with the added tax
credits for rehab and energy conservation tax credits passed by Congress that will give credits
to many items that conserve energy from new appliances, new heat and air systems, insulat ion
in your home, new replacements windows
and storm windows. Air infiltration is the
culprit that many of these home renovations
are attempting to thwart. Most homeowners
are assured that “new windows” will save
them lots of money and will solve all of their
air infiltration issues because the window
salesman told them so. However, as the
chart to the right and the one below show, air
infiltration by windows and doors are ranked
fifth and sixth of all air infiltration culprits.
The main offender in air infiltration in the
home is floors, walls, and ceilings that
account for 31% of all air infiltration. After
that is ductwork at 15%, fireplaces at 14%
and plumbing penetrations at 13%.
Basically, air seeps though your walls, ceilings, and floors at a much greater rate than through
your windows and doors combined. Adding insulation to your ceilings and floors can be done
with no external change to the structure and not evoke the COA process. The insulation of
walls can be more difficult, but can be achieved from inside or outside without a COA. Likewise,
sealing the HVAC ductwork; inspecting and replacing or repairing the damper in your fireplace;
installing expanding foam around plumbing entries; and sealing around fans, vents, and outlets
can save energy dollars without a COA.
Source: California Energy Commission
5
For many years, people have been adding storm windows to their home. According to Paul
Trudeau, (NAPC Staff) storm windows have been in existence for over 100 years. Before that,
people protected the sashes of their windows through operable shutters. The addition of storm
windows changed with the recent invention of vinyl (plastic) windows. The vinyl was cheap
enough to entice people to replace the whole window unit instead of adding storm windows.
The chart below describes energy savings and financial payback on window replacements. The
chart assumes this is existing construction with single pane original windows in place. This
chart was shown by Paul Trudeau at CAMP in September 2009 in Eldorado, AR. Starting on
the left side of the graphic, a $50 storm window when combined with the existing window has a
U-factor (efficiency factor) of .50. Your old wood window has a U-Value of 1.10. The lower the
U-factor, the better. The energy savings is 722,218 Btu with an annual savings per window of
$13.20. This simple payback will take 4.5 years. The next three examples show differences in
the types of windows installed and the types of windows being replaced. This is annual energy
savings as compared to the window it is replacing. The energy savings noted in this chart is not
for new construction. For example, to replace your original window with a double -pane thermal
window saves 625,922 Btu over what was there before. Your windows will be tight, but the cost
will take 40.5 years to recoup the cost. By that time, a vinyl window will need to be replaced
and the homeowner will be “underwater on their window mortgage.” A more extreme example
is to replace your original windows and storm windows with Low-e glass double pane thermal
windows. That takes 240 years to recoup the cost of the windows. Also, note that the old
windows go to the dump yard when taken out. The thermal seal in the double and triple paned
windows are noticeable when they are broken as evidenced by the condensation in between the
layers of the glass.
The metal on storm windows can be painted to match the sash of the house before they are
installed. Storm windows also come in different colors from the factory, mill (aluminum color),
bronze and white are common colors. Painting your windows at the
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
6
same time as installing the storm windows will provide a seamless installation that will obscure
the presence of the storm windows as much as possible.
It is also important to buy storm windows with full screens that mimic the older screens. On
fixed windows, no screen is allowable, since no screen would have been there originally. On
operable storm windows, the sash size must match with the original windows to provide the best
results.
Interior storm windows are an option that does not require a COA. Some research on the web
provided professional companies along with do-it-yourself options. A DIY option is at
http://www.hammerzone.com/archives/energy/conservation/basics_1/window_cover.htm.
Toolbase Services has a list of manufacturers of interior storm windows at
http://www.toolbase.org/TechInventory/TechDetails.aspx?ContentDetailID=938. Climate Seal
promotes interior storm windows that have a “refrigerator like seal” that has a magnetic
attachment system described at the website below.
http://www.climateseal.com/preservation_window_inserts/preservation_window_inserts.htm. All
of the interior storm windows that were located on line are removable during mild weather days
to allow the opening of the original windows. Below are two graphics that show interior storm
windows. The energy savings calculated in the graphic above are based on exterior storm
windows, not interior storm windows although U-Values are thought to be similar.
Source: Keith Habereern, P.E. R.A.
Collingswood Historic District Commission
7
This shows a person removing
an interior storm window.
This shows the interior storm window installed. It is
placed vertically against the lower sash in this photo.
Below are the applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for storm windows and replacement
windows.
2. The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal of
historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be
avoided.
5. Distinctive features, finishes and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship
that characterize a property shall be preserved.
6. Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity
of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature shall match the old
in design, color, texture and other visual qualities and, where possible, materials. Replacement
of missing features shall be substantiated by documentary, physical or pictorial evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic
materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and
shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural features to protect the
historic integrity of the property and its environment.
10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a
manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and
its environment would be unimpaired.
When the Secretary of the Interior Standards are applied strictly, no replacement windows are
installed in the district. The addition of storm windows is completely reversible, as standard
number 10 requires where as a replacement window is not.
The education of the public needs to enforce the facts that replacement windows are not the
end all to energy savings that they are purported to be, not on a financial level or an energy
8
saving level. Maintaining the original wood windows with an appropriate interior or exterior
storm window is acceptable to the HDC and the Secretary of Interior Standards.
Staff has inspected the windows and the wood appears to be in good condition. Cords were
visibly cut so that the weights and pulleys would not work. Glazing was not missing, but was not
tight against the glass as it should be. The windows were also painted shut from the outside. It
is Staff’s opinion that the windows are a good candidate for repair work and are not in a state of
deterioration that would warrant replacement.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial.
COMMISSION ACTION: May 10, 2010
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the commission. He stated that the notices had
been met for this item to be heard.
Margaret Brueggeman, the applicant, gave photos of the house and the brochure of the new
windows to the commissioners. She spoke of excessive heat bills ($1,205.39 for the November
– April 2010 gas bills). She continued that she suffered heat loss though the windows. Her
house feels drafty and cold. She wondered about the objection to the vinyl windows. She
stated that the top part of the windows would be stationary, and the bottom part would lift out to
be cleaned. They would come with half screens. She says the house was built in 1937, not as
the Staff report states. She has considered under floor insulation, but it could not be financed.
Sears would finance her windows. She has hardwood floors, no cracks in her walls or ceilings.
She recently obtained a reverse mortgage and planned to stay in the house for a while. Later
on, she plans to add a driveway and steps to the side of the house.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that the commission wants to help her enjoy her home
and the she was excited about the changes. She asked Ms. Brueggeman which windows were
to be replaced. Ms. Brueggeman stated those were the worse rooms for draftiness and has to
use space heaters in those rooms.
Commissioner Wiedower talked about heat loss in homes. Ms. Brueggeman responded that
there is a lot of wind in the neighborhood and there were drafts in the home. Commissioner
Wiedower confirmed that reducing the drafts were the main objective. Commissioner Wiedower
stated the commission’s problems with vinyl windows. Chairman Marshall Peters stated that
she was proposing to spend $600.00 for each vinyl window but that storm windows for $150
each would be more economical.
Commissioner Randy Ripley asked how long Ms. Brueggeman had lived there. She stated
since 2001. He asked if she had bought the windows yet. She said that she had obtained
financing for them, but believes that she can cancel the windows.
Commissioner Loretta Hendrix asked if she had considered an energy audit. Commissioner
Ripley explained what an energy audit was. Ms. Brueggeman explained that she knew what
was wrong with her house.
Chairman Peters asked if she had had the house rewired. Ms. Brueggeman responded that she
had some rewiring done to add an electric cook stove, security lighting, etc. She stated that she
9
had had a CDBG block grant in 2003 for correcting some electrical problems. She also had to
replace the connection to the public sewer line for $2000.
Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham noted that the MacArthur Park Neighborhood Association
meets once a month and that he would like to invite her to attend those meetings. He continued
that she should be able to do her entire house in storm windows for $4000.00. He stated that it
was noble for her to spend money on the improvement of her home, but suggested that she
could do all of the windows for what she is spending on doing part of her windows.
Commissioner Hendrix spoke of how she had caulked and insulated around her windows in her
own home to reduce drafts. Ms. Brueggeman commented that most of her problems come from
the windows, not through her walls.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if the City of Little Rock received “cash of caulkers” stimulus
money. Chairman Peters stated the he thought we did. Conversation then turned to grant
monies available to improve energy efficiency of homes. Commissioner Hendrix suggested that
she check out tightenuparkansas.org.
The commission can defer an item for cause to obtain more information on an alternative
submission (storm windows). The next hearing date is June 14, 2010. Chairman Peters
advised the applicant that if the application is left as is, it could be denied. Ms. Brueggeman
amended her application to reflect storm windows in those locations. Commissioner Ripley
asked that Ms. Brueggeman check with Sears to see if they could provide storm windows.
A motion was made to defer the item at the request of the commission until the June 14, 2010
meeting by Commissioner Wiedower based on the amended application and seconded by
Commissioner Hendrix. The motion was approved with a vote of 5 ayes.
Staff stated that they would check on grant monies and storm window issues. Commissioner
Wiedower said that she would check with Entergy. The applicant was given a copy of the
guidelines.
COMMISSION UPDATE: May 10, 2010
Staff has received information from the applicant on the storm windows. The manufacturer
provides for multiple colors of metal and the option of full screens. Based on the guidelines, the
preferred option would be the #696 Double Hung Window with he optional full screen in
fiberglass. The trim and sashes on the home are currently white, so a trim finish in Snow Mist
would be appropriate. Staff believes that storm windows are appropriate on any or all of the
windows of the home.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of storm windows in a finish of Snow White with a full
fiberglass screen.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 14, 2010
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the amended application.
A motion was made by Commissioner Wiedower to approve with condition of Staff.
Commissioner Hendrix seconded. The motion was passed with a vote of 3 ayes, 1 absent
(Ripley) and 1 no (Vanlandingham). Commissioner Vanlandingham voted no because he is of
the opinion that the commission cannot stipulate color.
10
There was a three-minute recess. Afterwards, Boyd Maher, Director of the Capitol Zoning
District Commission addressed the commission and asked for goodwill between the two
commissions. He spoke of the overlap are that both of the commissions regulate. A discussion
arose in whether one or more commissioners are going to attend the Central High
Neighborhood Association meeting mentioned by Mr. Maher. Commissioner Hendrix stated she
would go and the other commissioners stated that they would not attend therefore; notification
of the press was not necessary. Discussion continued about what was going to be discussed at
the meeting. Discussion continued on the NSP2 committee and the Central High DOD.
Commissioner Randy Ripley entered the meeting at 5:20.
V. Other Matters
A: Enforcement issues
Chairman Marshall Peters asked Staff to look into the houses at 9th and Cumberland. He
asked who owns the buildings, who are in charge of maintenance, why house was boarded up.
Mr. Minyard stated that he would have code enforcement Staff check into the matter. Staff is
also to check on the progress of the siding repair in the 800 block of Commerce Street.
Chairman Peters also added that he would like enf orcement to be done on weekends, not just
9-5 on weekdays.
B: Certificates of Compliance
There were one Certificates of Compliance issued in the previous month at 914 Scott to replace
a garage roof that sits on the alley.
C: Dunbar Survey Update
Andre Bernard has not updated Staff on this project.
D: Preservation Plan Subcommittee
The next meeting is scheduled for June 24th. The committee has been given information for the
first meeting.
11
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. E.
DATE: June 14, 2010
APPLICANT: Staff
COA
REQUEST: Ordinance Revisions
The Citywide Preservation Plan of 2009 recommended that the commission be increased to
seven or nine members as stated on pages 90-91 in the Preservation Plan. This proposed
change is a first step to implement this Plan.
Section 1. Subsection 23-97(a) of the Little Rock, Ark. Revised Code of Ordinances (1988) is
hereby amended to increase the number of Historic District Commissioners from five (5) to
seven (7), to establish numbered positions for the Historic District Commission members, and to
read as follows:
(a) The historic district commission shall consist of seven (7) members who shall be electors of
the city holding no salaried or elective municipal office. Each member shall be appointed by the
board of directors to fill one of the following positions:
Position 1: Owner of Property located in the MacArthur Park Historic District.
Position 2: Owner and Occupant of a structure located in the MacArthur Park Historic
District.
Position 3: Architect.
Position 4: Quapaw Quarter Association Representative selected from a list of three (3)
candidates submitted by the Quapaw Quarter Association Board of Directors.
Position 5: At Large.
Position 6: Owner and Occupant of a structure located in a National Register Historic District
other than the MacArthur Park Historic District.
Position 7: Owner and Occupant of a structure located in a National Register Historic District
other than the MacArthur Park Historic District.
The other issue arose from the work plan was the ninety-day mandate to approve an item. After
discussion by the commission, it was felt that three regularly scheduled meetings was more
appropriate than the ninety days. For example, from the February 2020 meeting until the May
2010 meeting is 91 days and from the March 2010 meeting until the June 2010 meeting is 98
days because of longer months. This would force the item to be acted upon in approximately
sixty days or two hearings instead of ninety days. The state statute says in section 14-172-209
(b)2 that the commission shall act within a reasonable amount of time. This section must be
changed in the ordinance before the bylaws can be changed to reflect this. The proposed text
is as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
12
Sec. 23-118. Public hearings and deferrals.
At the public hearing, the commission shall hear all persons desiring to present information
regarding the application. After such public hearing, the historic district commission shall make
its determination as to the appropriateness of the proposed change. The commission may
immediately announce its decision or defer the matter to its next regularly scheduled
commission meeting or reschedule the application for future consideration at such other public
hearings as are deemed necessary or desirable in order to fully develop the facts and
circumstances surrounding any one (1) particular application. No application for a certificate of
appropriateness for a purpose other than demolition shall be deferred at the insistence of the
historic district commission longer than ninety (90) days one hundred (100) days from the date
of the first public hearing without consent of the applicant. If the commission has rendered no
decision on the application for a purpose other than demolition within ninety (90) days one
hundred (100) days from the time of the first public hearing, unless the applicant has agreed to
a further deferral or extension of time, the commission shall consider the application as having
been approved and shall issue a certificate of appropriateness.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 14, 2010
The commission briefly discussed the item as submitted. Concerning the change in time limit
from 90 to 100 days, Debra Weldon, City attorney’s office, stated that “three regularly scheduled
meetings” was an awkward measure of time. Mr. Minyard reminded that commission that
throughout the process of the work plan, the commission stated that they would vote on the
changes at the end of the process. He continued that he would suggest voting on each item
individually. A motion was made by Commissioner Julie Wiedower to recommend the change
to the Board of Directors to change the ordinance as presented by Staff and was seconded by
Commissioner Randy Ripley. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes.
13
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. F.
DATE: June 14, 2010
APPLICANT: Staff
COA
REQUEST: Bylaw Revisions
The Bylaws have been revised in the past, the latest being in 2006. In 2008, Staff had compiled
a list of topics for the Commission to evaluate. Over the next year and a half, the Commission
and Staff worked through these items and as a result, some changes are proposed to the
Bylaws. Below is a summary of the changes a proposed by the Commission.
Updates from Commission / Work Plan topics: page numbers refer to this document.
Page 4; Notifications of deferred items
Page 8; Deferrals
On page 8; Article V Section E(8)b3, the ninety-day clause is still in the proposed text. The
ordinance must be changed before the bylaws can be changed to reflect this. After the
ordinance is changed, Staff will bring the bylaw issue back to the commission to change. The
proposed text is 100 days, which covers three months of meeting including the long months with
five Mondays.
Following is a copy of the text with edits shown as such: added text deleted text
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
14
BY-LAWS
Article I. Authorization
The Little Rock Historic District Commission is established by Little Rock Ordinance No. 13,154,
pursuant to Arkansas State Act 882 of 1975 as amended.
Article II. Purpose of the By-laws
It is the intent of these bylaws to prescribe the organization of the Little Rock Historic District
Commission; to provide for the equitable and expeditious implementation of procedures
required by Arkansas statute and Little Rock ordinance, to direct the conduct of its affairs, to
inform the impacted area of its proceedings and to keep records of those results for the general
public.
Article III. The Historic District Commission
A. Members and Terms
1. Commission shall consist of five (5) members appointed by the Mayor, subject to
confirmation by the Board of Directors and who shall be electors of the City of Little Rock
holding no salaried or elective municipal office.
2. The appointments to membership shall be so arranged that the term of at least one (1)
member will expire each year, and their successor shall be appointed in a like manner for terms
of three (3) years.
3. Vacancies shall be filled in like manner for the unexpired term.
4. Members who are appointed to fill vacancies for unexpired terms shall join the
Commission at the next meeting following their appointment and confirmation.
5. The appointing authority shall have the power to remove any member of the
Commission for cause and after public hearing; provided, however, any member of the
Commission who shall be absent from three (3) or more consecutive scheduled calendar
meetings may be removed from office without hearing upon certification of such fact by the
secretary of the Commission to the City Manager.
6. The Commission shall elect a chair and vice chair annually from its own number at the
last meeting of the year.
7. The Commission may adopt rules and regulations in conformity with Arkansas law and
the Little Rock Code and may, subject to appropriation, employ clerical and technical assistants
or consultants and may accept money, gifts, or grants and use them for these purposes.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
15
B. Officers
1. Chair and Vice Chair.
a. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve for a period of one (1) year. The Chair, and Vice
Chair, may succeed him or herself in office but shall not serve consecutively for more than three
(3) years.
b. The Chair shall preside at all meetings and hearings of the Commission. In the event of the
absence or disability of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall preside. In the event of the absence or
disability of both the Chair and Vice Chair at any meeting, the oldest appointive member in point
of service shall act as Chair during such meeting.
c. The Chair shall present to the Commission for its approval the names of all persons
appointed to committees established by the Commission. The Chair shall designate one (1)
member of such committee to serve as the committee Chair.
d. The Chair shall sign all approved minutes, and when authorized, other documents on behalf
of the Commission.
2. Secretary.
a. The Office of Secretary shall be held ex-officio by the Director of Little Rock Planning and
Development or his designated representative.
b. The Secretary shall attend all meetings of the Commission and be responsible for:
(i) maintaining a record of the rules and regulations of the Commission;
(ii) maintaining a record of the organization of the Commission and its staff;
(iii) maintaining a record of the current membership of the Commission with their terms of office;
(iv) preparing the agendas of items to be considered at a meeting.
(v) keeping the minutes of each meeting;
(vi) carrying on routine correspondence; and
(vii) maintaining the files of the Commission.
Article IV. Meetings
A. Regular Meetings
1. Date.
The Commission shall, at the last regular meeting of each year, adopt a calendar of regular
meeting dates for the forthcoming year as required by Ordinance.
2. Time.
The Commission shall meet regularly as indicated by the adopted calendar.
3. Place.
The Commission shall meet regularly in the Board of Directors’ Chamber or such other places
as directed by the Commission.
4. Notice.
a. To the Commissioners: The mailing of a copy of the agenda to each Commissioner one (1)
week prior to the date set for a meeting shall constitute notice of such meeting. On the morning
of the day of a meeting, each Commissioner shall be reminded of the meeting by telephone by
the Secretary.
16
b. To General Public: Legal Notice – Notice of public hearing on regulations, ordinances or
amendments thereto, or applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be published at
least one (1) time in a newspaper having general circulation throughout the city at least fifteen
(15) days prior to the hearing. Notice of public hearing on the establishment of a proposed
historic district shall be provided by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city
once a week for three (3) consecutive weeks, the first such notice to be at least twenty (20)
days prior to the public hearing.
c. To Applicant and Affected Property Owners:
(i) Notice of public hearing on a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be sent to the applicant by
regular mail postage prepaid at least twenty-five (25) days before the hearing. Notice of public
hearing on a Certificate of Appropriateness shall also be sent by the applicant to the owners of
properties materially affected by any of the changes proposed in said application. Such notice
shall be sent by certified mail return receipt requested. The notices shall be mailed no later than
ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Applicant shall provide to Staff the hand stamped “Certified
Mail Receipts” provided by the United States Postal Service or equivalent. Applicant shall
provide proof of mailing to the affected property owners and their mailing addresses. The cost
of such notice shall be paid by the applicant.
(ii) Notice of a public hearing deferral date approved by the Commission shall be sent by the
Commission Secretary, at the expense of the Little Rock Planning and Development
Department, by regular mail at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the deferred hearing to the
owners of properties materially affected by any of the changes proposed in the application. This
supplemental notice requirement shall not apply to deferrals caused by the applicant’s failure to
complete the initial notice requirements described in subsection (c)(i) above. In such cases, the
applicant shall be responsible for providing initial notice of the new public hearing date.
(iii) The properties within one hundred fifty (150) feet of an applicant’s property are deemed
materially affected by the changes proposed in the application, unless otherwise determined by
the Historic District Commission within thirty (30) days after receipt of the application.
5. Procedure.
All meetings and public hearings of the Historic District Commission are subject to the
procedural requirements set out in Chapter 23 of the Little Rock Code pursuant to Arkansas
statute and as amended from time to time.
B. Called Meetings
Special meetings may be called by the Chair, or at the request of the Secretary, or by a quorum
of the Commissioners, or by a majority of those present at a regular or called meeting. Notice of
such meeting shall be given as prescribed for a regular meeting, unless such called meeting is
to be held within less than three (3) days, in which case, notice by telephone shall suffice if a
public hearing is not required and if Freedom of Information Act public meeting notice
requirements are met. Announcement of a special meeting at any meeting at which a quorum
of the Commission is present shall be sufficient notice to the Commissioners.
C. Adjourned Meetings
17
Where all applications cannot be disposed of on the day set, the Commission may adjourn from
day-to-day or as necessary to complete the hearing of all items docketed. A majority vote of
those present shall be required to adjourn.
D. Executive Session
The Commission may, either before, during or after any meeting, sit in executive or private
session. No official business shall be transacted during such session except privileged matters
relating to personnel hired by the Commission as allowed by law.
Article V. Conduct of Business
A. Order of Agenda
All meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the agenda which shall enumerate the
topics and cases in the following sequence:
1. Roll Call.
2. Finding of a Quorum.
3. Approval of Previous Minutes.
4. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness.
5. New Certificates of Appropriateness.
6. Other Matters.
7. Adjournment.
B. Order of Hearing
At a hearing, the order shall be as follows:
1. Announcement of the Subject by the Chair.
2. Summary of Proposal and Report of Staff Findings and Recommendations by
Secretary/Staff.
3. Petitioner’s or Applicant’s Presentation.
4. Objector’s or Interested Property Owner’s Presentation.
5. Petitioner’s Rebuttal.
6. Questions and Discussion by Commissioners.
7. Commission Vote on the Request as Filed.
8. Additional Motion of Commission as May Be Required to Dispose of an Issue. (Such motion
shall be placed in the positive).
C. Standard Rules of Procedure
Except as may otherwise be set forth in these by-laws, parliamentary procedure shall be as
prescribed in the latest edition of Roberts’ Rules of Order, Revised.
D. Special Rules of Procedure
1. Quorum.
A quorum for the transaction of business shall be three (3) members.
18
2. Vote and Proxy.
Each Commissioner, including the Chair, shall be entitled to one (1) vote. No Commissioner
shall cast a vote for another Commissioner by proxy. Any member of the Commission who shall
have an economic interest in any property or decision relating to such property, which shall be
the subject matter of, or affected by, a decision of the Commission shall be disqualified from
participating in the public discussion or proceedings in connection therewith. Any Commission
member may upon disclosure of his or her interest participate in agenda meeting discussions of
an informational nature concerning said subject. In the event that any member of the
Commission is uncertain as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists, that member should
obtain an opinion from the Office of the City Attorney before either participating in the discussion
or voting on the application.
3. Motion and Voting on a Certificate of Appropriateness.
Any matter of business requiring action by the Commission may be presented by oral motion,
and the members present may vote thereon by simple voice vote. In the case that said motion
is to approve or deny a Certificate of Appropriateness, the chair of the Commission shall
prepare and circulate to the other Commission members a statement of the reasons for
approval or denial of the application. Said statement, including such comments as other
members may wish to add, shall be returned to the Secretary of the Commission within fifteen
(15) days of the Commission’s action and shall become a part of the permanent record. In case
of a split vote, the Chair may ask for a show of hands. The minutes shall indicate the voting to
be “denied” or “passed” and the name of any abstainer. Voting on election of officers in which
there is a contest shall be by written ballot.
4. Majority Vote.
a. These rules may be amended or modified by an affirmative vote of not less than three (3)
members of the Commission, provided that such amendment be presented in writing at a
regular meeting and action taken thereon at a subsequent regular meeting or as otherwise
provided in Article VII of these by-laws.
b. A majority of the full membership of the Commission shall be required in order to t ake final
action of the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness.
5. Conduct of Hearing.
Public hearings shall be conducted informally, and the Chair shall make all rulings and
determinations regarding the admissibility of evidence, the scope of the admissibility of
evidence, the scope of the inquiry, the order in which evidence, objections and arguments shall
be heard, and other like matters, except that any member shall be privileged to make inquiries
personally and to call for a vote on any ruling of the Chair with which he does not agree,
whereupon the vote shall determine the effective ruling. It shall be the purpose of the Chair to
expedite all hearings, confining them to the presentation of only essential matters in the interest
of saving time, but entertaining the presentation of sufficient matter to do substantial justice to
all concerned.
6. The Secretary of the Commission shall affix an identification tag which includes the case
number and an exhibit designation in sequence beginning with “A” to each item, visual or
written, formally presented to the Commission at the time of the material’s introduction to the
Commission, which is designated by the applicant or other parties testifying before the
Commission as a submission to form part of the record upon which the Commission makes its
decision.
E. General Policies
19
1. Formal Action.
No request to discuss an issue or issues at a public hearing which are not docketed for said
hearing may be acted upon formally by the Commission.
2. Closing of Docket.
No application for a Certificate of Appropriateness shall be submitted to the Commission, or
prepared by the Secretary for submission, unless the same has been filed in the required
fashion and no later than the docket date established by the adopted calendar. The staff shall
investigate and consider each application, advertise the hearing, and present its findings, on an
area wide basis rather than an individual site basis.
3. Open Meetings.
All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public as required by law (other than
executive sessions).
4. Public Hearings.
All items for which Commission action is required by law or ordinance shall be made the
subjects of open public hearings, and after public notice as prescribed by law or ordinance.
5. Public Records.
All minutes of Commission meetings and all petitions, applications, reports and other documents
on which action has been taken by the Commission shall be open to the public and available for
inspection at reasonable times.
6. Reconsideration of Denied or Amended Applications.
a. Expunging Actions.
The Commission may, when it deems necessary and for cause, expunge any motion and
subsequent action in order to introduce a substitute motion for other action. The motion to
accomplish such shall be made immediately and preceding the introduction of the next item of
business on that agenda. When an item has been voted on and passed over for the next item
of business, it shall not be recalled at that meeting for further action.
b. Reconsideration.
No application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property shall be considered if a former
application embracing the same property or a portion thereof has been denied by the
Commission within a period of 12 months preceding the application, except for cause and with
unanimous consent of all members present at a regular meeting. If the Commission decides to
rehear a case it will require legal ad, notice to owners, etc., as required for new application.
If an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness for property embracing the same property
or a portion thereof has been previously denied by the Commission, the Commission shall not
grant a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for such property unless a material change has been made by the applicant,
which change is clearly designated by the applicant in the application, in the proposed erection,
alteration, restoration, moving or demolition of buildings, structures or appurtenant fixtures on
such property or portions thereof from that contained or proposed in the previous application(s)
previously been denied by the Commission.
7. Withdrawals.
20
No application, which has been docketed for public hearing and advertised for such hearing
shall be withdrawn, except as follows:
a. Except for cause and with a written request, five working days prior from the applicant of
record, no case shall be withdrawn.
b. When the public hearing has already been advertised, the Commission must authorize the
withdrawal by motion in the public hearing.
c. In the event the case is withdrawn after the public hearing has been advertised, that same
case shall not be resubmitted for a period of one year.
d. No applicant shall be allowed to withdraw an application during the public hearing. Specific
action must be taken by the Historic District Commission to remove an item from the agenda.
8. Deferrals.
No application which has been docketed for public hearing and advertised for such hearing shall
be deferred, except as follows:
a. Except for cause and with a written request five working days prior from the applicant of
record, no case shall be deferred.
b. In the event a case my require an additional deferral, a re-notification of property owners
shall be required.
c. No single request for deferral shall be granted for more than ninety consecutive days,
except by unanimous vote of all members present.
d. In no case shall more than two requests for deferral from an application be granted.
e. In the public hearing, the Historic District Commission may for cause defer an application on
its own motion. The length of the deferral shall be specified by the Commission in the motion.
a. Deferral by the Applicant.
(1) No application which has been docketed for public hearing and advertised for such hearing
shall be deferred by the Applicant, except for cause stated in a written request submitted at
least five working days prior to the date of the advertised hearing.
(2) The length of the deferral shall be specified by the Applicant in their written request.
(3) No single request for deferral by the Applicant shall be granted for more than ninety (90)
days, except by unanimous vote of all Commission members present.
(4) In no case shall more than two requests for deferral by an Applicant be granted by the
Commission.
(5) Notice of a deferral date requested by the Applicant shall be sent as required in Article IV of
these bylaws.
(6) If the Applicant is not ready to move forward with the hearing after t wo deferrals have been
granted at the request of the Applicant, the Commission may exercise one of the following
options:
(i) Dismiss the application with or without prejudice against the re-filing of the same application
within one (1) year;
(ii) Defer the public hearing on the Commission's motion for cause; or
(iii) Hold the public hearing and grant or deny the Certificate of Appropriateness.
b. Deferral by the Commission.
(1) At any meeting where there is less than a full quorum of the Commission in at tendance, but
prior to opening the floor to a public hearing, the Historic District Commission shall explain that
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness requires three (3) affirmative votes and shall ask
the Applicant if they would like to defer their public hearing to the next regularly scheduled
21
Historic District Commission meeting. Such deferral shall be considered a deferral by the
Commission.
(2) During a public hearing, the Historic District Commission may defer consideration of the
application for cause stated by the Commission in its motion for deferral.
(3) The length of the deferral shall be specified in the Commission's motion.
(4) No application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, for a purpose other than demolition, shall
be deferred at the insistence of the Historic District Commission longer than ninety (90) days
from the date of the first public hearing without the consent of the applicant.
(5) Notice of a deferral date requested by the Commission shall be sent as required in Article IV
of these bylaws.
9. Applicant Attendance at Meeting.
The applicant of each item docketed shall be present or represented at the meeting and
prepared to discuss the request.
10. Precedents.
No action of the Commission shall be deemed to set a precedent. Each item docketed shall be
decided upon its own merit and circumstances attendant thereto.
11. Dissent.
If a member of the Little Rock Historic District Commission wishes to dissent from a majority
opinion of the Commission, he or she shall communicate a written minority opinion to the
following:
a. All members of the Historic District Commission,
b. The Secretary of the Historic District Commission who will note it in the
record.
12. Submitted Materials.
All materials, written, graphic or otherwise, presented to the Commission for consideration shall
become the possessions of the Commission for a period of 90 days after the Commission’s
action. In the event that legal measures contesting the Commission’s decision are taken within
this time period, said materials shall remain in the possession of the Commission until such time
as these legal measures are exhausted.
Article VI. Design Guidelines
It shall be the Commission’s responsibility to see that the Macarthur Park Historic District
Design Guidelines, adopted pursuant to Little Rock Ordinance No. 14042 Section 4, are
periodically reviewed for needed revision. A thorough review of the Design Guidelines shall be
carried out, at minimum, every five years.
Article VII. Amendments
These by-laws may be amended or repealed by an affirmative vote of not less than three
members of the Commission. A proposed amendment, or a motion to repeal, shall first be
presented in writing at a regular meeting and placed on the agenda of a subseq uent regular
meeting for action, unless ten days written notice has been given to all Commissioners, in which
case action may be taken at any regular or called meeting.
22
Article VIII. Waivers
Any procedural provision of these by-laws that is not required by Arkansas statute or Little Rock
ordinance may be waived by a majority vote of the members present.
ATTEST:
__________________________ ________________________
Secretary Chair
___________________________
Date
COMMISSION ACTION: June 14, 2010
The commission briefly discussed the item. The item in front of the Commission states 90 days
instead of 100 because the ordinance as to be changed before the bylaws can be changed.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower suggested that the commission would not act on the item tonight
since it would have to be changed later. Mr. Minyard stated that the bylaws require a 10 -day
notice of proposed changes; therefore, the commission cannot vote on them tonight anyway.
Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, raised the issue of having the applicant ask for a deferral
five days in advance of the public hearing as stated in Article 5, Section E, 8, a. (1). It has been
discussed within Staff and it is an administrative requirement. The packets that are delivered to
you the commissioners would vary if a deferral were requested before five days. It was clarified
that it was five working days, not five calendar days.
Ms. Weldon provided a change to the bylaws striking Article 5, Section E, 8, a. (6) and adding a
section in Article 5, Section E, 8, b. at the first and renumbering the rest. She provided a
handout to the commission. The new text will be: (1) If the Applicant fails to provide proof that
the public hearing notice was mailed as required within, the Commission shall defer action on
the application to allow the Applicant time to provide notice of the new public hearing date and
to submit proof that the required notice was sent. Only two such deferrals shall be allowed.
After two deferrals for failure to provide proof of notice, the application shall be removed from
the docket and may not be resubmitted for one (1) year. Ms. Weldon submitted a time limit of
three meetings. That was not in the original text, but she submitted it for the Commission to
review. Commissioner Wiedower asked if this was tied to the land or just to the owner; what if
the property was sold afterwards? Ms. Weldon stated that would be a different application since
it was a different owner. Questions arose if this had happened before. Mr. Minyard stated that
this has happened before with Jay Core on fencing at 1020 Rock Street. Ms. Weldon
elaborated on the types of deferrals as shown on the proposed text. The item was not voted on,
and no motion was made at this time.
23
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. G.
DATE: June 14, 2010
APPLICANT: Staff
COA
REQUEST: Guidelines Revisions
The Guidelines have been revised numerous times in the past, the latest being in May 2006.
The 2006 Revisions were completed after a review by Noré Winter, a preservation consultant
that updated the 1997 Guidelines.
In 2008, Staff had compiled a list of topics for the Commission to evaluate. Over the next year
and a half, the Commission and Staff worked through these items and as a result, some
changes are proposed to the Guidelines. These changes are proposed to be inserted into the
existing format of the guidelines. Below is a summary of the changes a proposed by the
Commission. A list of changes proposed by Staff after that.
Updates from Commission / Work Plan topics:
Page 51; Added value cost of windows
Page 52; Edited Storm and Security doors
Page 52; Added text under Windows
Page 52; Edited text on Screen and Strom Windows
Page 70; Replaced text on end user satellite dishes
Page 106: Add definition of Satellite Dish, end user:
Page 113: Add definition of Window, clad
Page 113: Add definition of Window, vinyl
Updates from Staff:
Page 2; Update graphics for map of the district to make streets more readable.
Page 82; Update map of NR districts to reflect additional districts.
Page 85: Add new NR districts to description page
Page 90-94; replace COA application to current form
Following are PDF’s of the proposed changes. Edits are shown in red. Please refer to your
copies of the guidelines to view the current language.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
24
COMMISSION ACTION: June 14, 2010
Brian Minyard briefly covered the changes. He read the text under “value cost of windows” on
page 52 that he wrote. The other text changes were discussed in the various meeting. The
commission briefly discussed the item. Discussion focused on page 52 of the guidelines
concerning screen and storm doors and storm windows matching the trim colors of the house.
Edits need to be made to the storm window section to include the edits that had been approved
by the committee. Less obtrusive colors on those items were deemed more desirable.
Commissioner Vanlandingham advocated for dark frames on the storm windows. The text as
proposed was not changed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Randy Ripley to approve the wording as submitted and
as read by Staff and was seconded by Commissioner Julie Wiedower. The motion passed with
a vote of 4 ayes and 1 no (Vanlandingham).
25
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. H.
DATE: June 14, 2010
APPLICANT: Staff
COA
REQUEST: Policy Changes
In 2008, Staff had compiled a list of topics for the Commission to evaluate. Over the next year
and a half, the Commission and Staff worked through these items and as a result, some
changes are proposed Staff Policy. Below is a summary of the changes as proposed by the
Commission.
PROBLEM #1:
Maintenance versus COA:
Staff will review all properties for security bars and window air conditioner units based on
pictorial evidence (the MacArthur park re-survey of 2007-2008). Results will be tabulated and
that list will establish the grandfathered list as of that point and given to the commissioners and
Staff. New security bars and air conditioner units will be treated as an enforcement item.
Letters will be mailed to owners that have security bars and encourage them to paint them in
accordance with the new guidelines.
Letters will need to be sent to owners with window units to inform them that old units can be
replaced with new units in the same window. Moving or adding units will be the subjects of
COAs.
PROBLEM #2:
Maintenance versus COA:
Staff will work with the property owner and the Building Inspector to design two options of
handrails to be the least obtrusive handrail possible. Staff will work with the property owner to
select the appropriate handrail as needed.
PROBLEM #4:
Satellite dishes
Staff will send letters to those with dishes concerning the changes based on pictorial evidence
of the MacArthur Park resurvey of 2007-2008.
PROBLEM #12:
Notification Requirements:
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
26
When a City of Little Rock property is in the area of influence, it was concluded that the notice
should be mailed to the address provided by the abstract company and that Staff should notify
the city departments affected.
PROBLEM #14:
NAPC ethics and CLR Ethics:
The City of Little Rock Code of Ethics and the NAPC Code of ethics will be included in all
commissioners’ packets. It will be explained that the City of Little Rock Code is mandatory, and
that the NAPC is voluntary. If there are contradictions between the two, the City of Little Rock
code will prevail.
PROBLEM # 16:
Real estate agents notification
Letters are being mailed out to real estate agents listing property, the seller of the property and
the new homeowners.
PROBLEM # 18:
Bylaw issues:
Staff will send letters via first class mail to property owners in the area of influence when an item
is deferred, both at the commissions and at the applicant’s request.
Other:
Staff will modify the letter that accompanies the copy of the Staff report to state the
recommendation of Staff and any conditions.
COMMISSION ACTION: June 14, 2010
Brian Minyard briefly covered the changes. He continued that he the spoke with the Building
codes manager about handrail design. He is planning to utilize a summer intern for the
inventory of satellite dishes and window air conditioners. Staff has already implemented the
policy change in #12, #16, #18 and the last “Other” item. Mr. Minyard stated that the letter
would include conditions of denial, deferral, or approval in the cover letter. Ms. Weldon stated
that there was not a need to vote on the policy changes discussed. She asked about #4. Mr.
Minyard responded that a letter would go to those individuals that have satellite dishes that say
that we acknowledge you have a one and here is the text from our guidelines concerning
satellite dishes. We are encouraging them to paint the dishes to be less obtrusive. It would
also not the all new ones would be subject to COAs. He referenced that the language
references the federal laws. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the inventory of the security
bars, satellite dishes, and air conditioners would be invaluable in enforcement issues later.
Commissioner Hendrix asked if a person receives on these letters referenced above, who is the
contact person stated? Mr. Minyard said he signs them and puts his direct phone number and
is placed on historic district letterhead.
I: Citizen Communication
No citizens were present to speak.
VI. Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:10 p.m.
Attest:
Chair
1
Secretary/Staff
27
Date
0(--)% -,2-o /O
Date