HDC_10 11 20101
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, October 11, 2011, 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: Tiffany Stracenor
Ann Fields
Leonard Hollinger
Mrs. Leonard Hollinger
II. Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Julie Wiedower made a motion to approve the minutes of September 13, 2010
as submitted. Commissioner Randy Ripley seconded and the motion passed with 5 ayes and 0
noes.
III. Deferred Certificates of Appropriateness
None
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: October 11, 2010
APPLICANT: Rene’ Sparrow
ADDRESS: 1107 Cumberland
COA
REQUEST: Installation of soffit, fascia, and gutter modifications
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1107 Cumberland
Street. The property's legal description is "Lot 2, Block 46
Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County, Arkansas."
This multifamily building was built in 1910. The 2006
survey form states: "A craftsman style apartment building
with shallow roof slope, wide overhangs and grouped
windows with multiple panes. Front and rear porches also
have Craftsman details.” It is considered a "Contributing
Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic District.
This application is a result of an enforcement action. The
Installation of soffit, fascia, and gutter modifications was
completed without a COA by the HOC. The fascia of the
building was covered in aluminum, the soffits covered in
vinyl and seamless gutters with leaf guard were installed. Rotted wood was removed.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On September 2, 2010, a COC was given to Rene' Sparrow for replacing trim boards around
windows and stucco repair.
On November 28, 1994, a COA was approved and issued to Lula Algee Richards for window
replacement on three sides of building, but not on front facade. The front facade was to be
restored to wood windows with 6/1-pane arrangement.
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
PROPOSAL:
The owners of the building, without prior approval of the HOC, modified the building as
described: 1) Aluminum fascia was installed over the existing fascia boards. 2) Vinyl soffit with
continuous venting was installed. The application reads "Removed rotted falling out wood."
Wood was replaced in the fascia, but Staff is unsure is any of the original soffit is still attached to
the building. 3) Guttering was removed and reinstalled with seamless gutters with leafguard.
The locations of the downspouts were changed from the front of the structure to the sides. The
lines in the "2010 front façade after modifications" photo are ghost lines of the gutters shown in
differing colors of paint. The building will be painted after the stucco repair work is finished.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Rehabilitation state:
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale, and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
This modification to the historic fabric of the building is not in compliance with the Secretary of
the Interior's Guidelines by the fact that historic material was removed and not replaced with
matching material or was covered with new material that is not appropriate to the structure.
This modification is also in violation of the COA process (work was executed without one) and
the failure to obtain? building permit.
That being said, the work that was performed is of good quality and is not readily perceivable to
the average citizen. The owner stated that the contractor was required to run the soffit board in
the same orientation as the original soffit bead board "to match" what was there with particular
care being taken at the corners. The ten rectangular soffit vents as shown in the 2006 south
facade photo have been replaced with perforated soffit panels. The new perforated panels are
shown in the photo below on the left but are difficult to see as the perforations in the panels are
designed not to be seen. This is a different look from before as the old vents were more readily
Front Façade from the 2006 Survey 2010 Front Façade after modifications
4
seen on the wide soffits. The original bead board is still in existence on the front porch second
floor ceiling as seen in the photo on the left below.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtain a retroactive building permit for work performed.
COMMISSION ACTION: October 11, 2010
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation of the item for the commission. Proper notice has
been made. He stated that he did not have any comments or questions from neighboring
property owners.
Commissioner Julie Wiedower asked if Staff knew when the windows on the north and south
elevation were replaced. He commented that it was stated in the staff report on page one and
probably was done thereafter. She continued that there appears to be quite a bit of damage to
the stucco that was part of the COC. She was curious as to whether the building was originally
stuccoed or was stuccoed over brick. He commented that the survey just stated stucco, and
that the applicant was there and that she may be able to answer that for the commission.
Tiffany Stracenor spoke for the owner of the building. She commented that she was not aware
that they were out of line when they did the repairs. The soffit and fascia were falling off and
needed to be repaired. She commented that the work did look good. Commissioner Wiedower
asked when the first repairs to the soffits were done. Ms. Stracenor stated it was eight years
ago, right after they purchased the building. She stated that code enforcement noted that it
needed to be repaired. Commissioner Wiedower said that when she drove by that she noticed
that the original front windows were in poor repair. She asked if the front windows were going to
be repaired. Ms. Stracenor stated that the first job was to repair the stucco, then to repair the
wood trim around the windows, then repair windows and paint the building. She stated that she
would get permission before she did the work. Commissioner Wiedower asked about the
stucco. Ms. Stracenor stated that behind the stucco was old wood and metal lath. Ms.
Stracenor thanked the commission.
Chairman Marshall Peters asked what the cost of the work to be done in the COC. Staff
commented that the staff does not ask for cost of repairs on COC’s (Certificate of Compliances).
Newly installed vented soffits Previous vents in soffits from 2006 survey photo
5
The COC was for stucco repair and trim board repair. Chairman Peters asked if a building
permit was required. Mr. Minyard stated that anything over $500.00 required a building permit,
but painting was excluded. Chairman Peters asked who obtained the building permit. Mr.
Minyard stated that in the Staff report, it clarifies that a building permit was not obtained and that
the recommendations requested that one be obtained retroactively. Mr. Minyard clarified that
the previous soffit work and stucco repair work would be combined into one building permit.
Commissioner Randy Ripley asked Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, while he did not see a
lot of significant architecturally differences, he did note the loss of authenticity. He continued
the question if this would set precedence. Ms. Weldon stated that the commission did not set
precedence, and could not promise that another person would not make the argument, but each
case should be judged on its own merit.
Commissioner Wiedower commented that it is unfortunate that this continues to happen and
folks do not realize that they are in a regulated district. She stated that she did not think the
changes have appreciably changed the historic appearance of the structure and moving the
downspouts was a more attractive appearance. Commissioner Wiedower made a motion to
approve the COA with staff recommendation of a retroactive building permit. Commissioner
Loretta Hendrix seconded the motion and the motion passed with 5 ayes and 0 noes. Chairman
Peters suggested the applicant to check with AHPP to see if the renovations made the structure
non-contributing.
6
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Two.
DATE: October 11, 2010
APPLICANT: Leonard Hollinger
ADDRESS: 420 East 11th Street (northwest corner of 11th and Commerce)
COA
REQUEST: Window Replacement
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 420 East 11th Street.
(The address of the property has been changed recently
from 1020 South Commerce.) The property’s legal
description is “Lot 7 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 which was to
change the period of significance through 1960 for the
District. That was approved by the NPS on January 21,
2010.
This application is proposing to replace the original aluminum windows with vinyl replacement
windows of the same size.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On July 15, 1998, a COA was approved and issued to Leo Hollinger for an addition of a guest
house to the north and removal and replacing of the main house with a different house. (The
guest house was built but the main house was not replaced.)
On October 26, 1981, a COA was approved and issued to Leo Hollinger for an addition of a
carport 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
7
PROPOSAL:
The applicant proposed to replace the original
aluminum windows in the house with vinyl windows
made by Window World. www.windowworld.com
They are the 4000 series with Sloarzone ETC, a
“soft coat, multi layer, vacuum deposition Low-E
glass with argon gas and Intercept Spacer System.
The windows will be on over one (will not have
muntins). The windows will be either white or
cream in color.
WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT AND GUIDELINES:
The Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitation state:
6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of
deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be
substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.
9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic
materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will
be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size,
scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.
This structure is a Contributing Structure in the MacArthur Park Historic District. The period of
significance for the Mac Arthur Park National Register District has been modified at the national
level from 1935 to 1960 which would include this building. Therefore, the replacement of
windows in this building should be treated the same as if it was a much older building. If the
windows cannot be repaired, the standards would state to replace them to “match the old in
design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.” The proposed windows are a different
material the than originals (vinyl versus aluminum), have a different pane arrangement (8/8
versus 1/1) and are going to be of a different color (white or cream versus aluminum mill stock
color).
Energy consumption and conservation are topics of conversation in many circles. While the
desire to conserve energy is admirable, the preservation of historic building materials are
House at 420 E 11th
Existing window on front of house Existing window on front of house
8
equally important. One option to improve efficiency is
to install storm windows in addition to the aluminum
windows. That solution is a common practice in
homes of this age and the historic fabric is still
present. A second option is to install new aluminum
windows that are energy efficient. Aluminum windows
with double pane glass and energy efficiency options
are available for the residential market and can be
customized with or without muntins to closely replicate
the existing windows. A third option is as proposed by
the applicant, install replacement vinyl windows.
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, insulation 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%.
Proposed Window Section
Source: California Energy Commission
9
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.
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
Source: U.S. Department of Energy
10
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
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
Source: Keith Habereern, P.E. R.A.
Collingswood Historic District Commission
11
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.
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
12
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 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.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Denial because of the proposed change in materials, pane
arrangement and color.
COMMISSION ACTION: September 13, 2010
Staff asked the applicant, Mr. Hollinger, if he had mailed the original “notice” to the surrounding
property owners. Brian Minyard stated that it was not paper clipped to the cards. Mr. Minyard
then produced the notice sent to City Hall that included the notice along with an additional letter
from the applicant. Mr. Hollinger stated that he had sent the notice along with his letter. Proper
notification was met.
Mr. Minyard made a brief staff presentation to the commission. He stated that he did not have
any comments or questions from neighboring property owners. Commissioner Julie Wiedower
noted that when she went by the property, she notice security bars on the windows. Mr.
Minyard stated that the bars were there before the last survey. He stated that the commission
should ask the applicant if they plan to remove them as part of this application.
Mr. Hollinger stated that they had owned the home since 1981 and commented on the windows
surviving a tornado and break-ins at the home. In August of this year, there was a break-in at
the house and as a result, the window is non-repairable. The breaking of the muntins has
compromised the security of the home. The applicant researched different options: replacing
with the same window (not in production anymore), no local companies offer similar windows,
new aluminum windows are not energy efficient, wood windows are cost prohibitive. Vinyl
windows provide the energy efficiency and the security needed. Adding storm windows are not
an option for us. Window grids can be added to the vinyl windows. He addressed the security
bars and stated that if the vinyl windows are approved, the security bars will disappear.
Commissioner Wiedower stated that she did not know the company he was dealing with, but
asked if he had been informed of life expectancy of the vinyl windows. She continued that what
she has read gives the life of the windows at a limited life span. Commissioner Randy Ripley
stated it varies with the quality and construction. Mr. Hollinger said that it would be thirty plus
13
years. Commissioner Wiedower asked if they had the ability to put the 8 over 8 grids in. Mr.
Hollinger stated they could but that it would not be the 8 over 8 individual panes. Commissioner
Ripley asked if there was a spacer bar in between the glass. Mr. Hollinger said it was not. He
stated that he was acceptable to putting the grids in. Commissioner Hendrix cautioned that he
be careful of the snap-in muntins because they may not be of good quality. Commissioner
Ripley asked if they were single hung, the answer is that the proposed is double hung.
Commissioner Ripley asked if he would be willing to go with the same muntin pattern as what is
there now. Mr. Hollinger answered yes.
Commissioner Wiedower commented that at one point in time, these windows were not
considered worthy of preservation. She wanted to clarify that it would not be possible to replace
these windows with what is there now. Mr. Hollinger stated that he could, but would not be
gaining anything in the process. He clarified for her that the muntins were mangled and non-
repairable. Commissioner Ripley wanted clarification that the original windows were true
divided lite windows. Mr. Hollinger said they were.
Mr. Minyard read part of the brochure concerning grids that come in various styles. It stated the
grids were interior and the Colonial were 6 over 6. If the motion was to include grids, the
manufacturer may not make 8 over 8 and the commission may not get 8 over 8. Commissioner
Ripley asked if the applicant has asked the manufacturer specifically if they make 8 over 8.
The answer was no. Commissioner Hendrix asked if they are replacement or custom. Mr.
Hollinger stated they are custom measured for each window and replacement windows. He
also clarified that he would be replacing all of the windows in the house. Commissioner
Wiedower asked about the shorter windows on the façade were originally that size. He
answered yes.
Commissioner Hendrix asked if he was getting a tax credit with the windows. He answered yes.
She asked if he looked at wood clad windows. Commissioner Ripley stated that the profile of
the window would change if he used the wood window. Commissioner Wiedower concurred.
Commissioner Ripley asked about color of the windows. Mr. Minyard stated it was white or
cream in the catalog. Mr. Hollinger stated his wife said white. Commissioner Chris
Vanlandingham asked if they were going to protrude from the house after installation. Mr.
Hollinger said they would not.
Commissioner Hendrix commented that she has always enjoyed the spring bulbs at the house.
Chairman Peters commented that the warranty should include all labor included in the warranty.
Commissioner Ripley discussed a motion to approve the application with the condition of
matching the existing muntin pattern, white in color and to remove the existing burglar bars.
Chairman Peters asked what if they could not get the 8 over 8 girds. Commissioner Wiedower
stated that if they could not get the 8 over 8, they would have to come back to the commission.
Commissioner Ripley made the motion to approve with the condition of matching the existing
muntin pattern, white in color and to remove the existing burglar bars and if 8 over 8 is not
available, the applicant will come back to the commission. Commissioner Wiedower seconded.
The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes and 0 noes. Mr. Minyard clarified the conditions of the
motion. Mr. Hollinger was curious if he could switch manufacturer if they could not make the 8
over 8. The commission said yes.
14
IV. Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff is waiting on the Housing Department to get me some information on the two houses on
Cumberland and Ninth.
Certificate of Compliances Issued
As stated on the chart given to the commission, a COC was issued for the four-plex apartment
at Sixth and Sherman and one for the old fire station in MacArthur Park (1201 Commerce).
Dunbar survey
Mr. Minyard will ask Tony Bozynski to ask Andre Bernard to attend the next HDC meeting to
give an update on the negotiations.
Preservation Plan Update
The group did not meet last month, so no report is given.
Page Wilson’s two-story house at 15th and Rock
Staff distributed a handout with the graphic of what was approved, a graphic of the elevations of
the building as shown when the building permit was obtained and current photos of the building
under construction. This item was presented in the agenda meeting to be discussed in the
meeting.
Brian Minyard started the discussion by stating that this discussion is not whether the building is
appropriate for the district, which was approved by the commission at that time. The window
placement has been approved by staff. The siding is the question that Staff would like the
commission to discuss as to whether it is an enforcement item or not.
Commissioner Chris Vanlandingham stated that the building appears to be taller than is
represented in the drawings. He asked if that had been considered by staff. Mr. Minyard stated
that he was concerned about that, but after calculating from photos, it appears to be about 26
feet tall. He continued that part of the problem is that the drawings submitted were not correct.
Commissioner Vanlandingham continued that the distance from the top of the window to the top
of the parapet looked taller as if the building had a hat on top of it. Mr. Minyard stated that it
appeared to be, by his calculations, within a foot of 26’. Chairman Peters said that he
remembers that in the hearings that both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Redden would shorten the height
from 24 feet. Mr. Minyard referred the commissioners to the last page of the minutes that had a
summary of the conditions of the motion and the amendments that state a height of 26’.
Commissioner Vanlandingham also has an issue with the downspouts. He says that they are
prominent on the north side of the structure. Commissioner Julie Wiedower stated that the
commission did not have review on this side of the façade but it was clear to her that he had to
go back and make the two street side elevations match his building permit drawings.
Commissioner Vanlandingham wanted a clarification from staff that only facades visible from the
street were subject to review. Mr. Minyard asked if the question was “if on new construction, the
commission has review of facades that do not face the street. Commissioner Ripley said that
the commission approves the set of drawings as a whole set, he did not know that the
commission concerned itself with some drawings, but not others. Ms. Weldon did not believe
that it was stated as a condition at that meeting to review some facades and not others. Staff
reviewed the current ordinance and bylaws and stated that the language was not there.
Commissioner Wiedower produced an earlier version of the ordinance and found the language
15
that had been omitted from the current version that was adopted in 2007. Staff admitted that it
had not been deleted on purpose and would research the item.
Commissioner Wiedower stated on the height issue, that these drawings were not the ones
approved by the commission and may not be to scale. Commissioner Vanlandingham said that
the distance above the window was visually the same as the height of the window on the
drawings, but not in the photos. Commissioner Wiedower stated that they were unloading
sheetrock when she went by but suspected that they were doing a roof deck on the building and
have a taller parapet for that.
Mr. Minyard stated that what was approved was in the minutes. The drawings approved were
the large grid to be modified to a lap siding.
Commissioner Wiedower asked if a discussion was had with Mr. Wilson on this. Mr. Minyard
said that up till this point, it had been a staff only discussion, and now it was a commission
discussion. Commissioner Wiedower said, that in her opinion, when these things happen, the
commission needs to see the elevations that have been made. She has no problem to have
him comply with the drawings that were submitted to obtain his building permits.
Commissioner Vanlandingham asked about the house he built next door. Mr. Minyard stated
that when he applied for his building permit, he had zero windows on the sides of the house in
the bedrooms. He was informed that the commission had required him to put two windows on
the side in each bedroom. He did not provide elevations for the house. The difference is that
they are ganged (together) instead of separate as the floor plan shows in the minute record.
Staff felt this met the spirit of the commission’s motion and intent. That was the one thing that
was different from the plan that Staff thinks you approved. Chairman Peters asked about
building materials. Mr. Minyard said that he felt that they complied.
Commissioner Ripley said another problem is the steps. He continued that the commission
does not have any details as to what they will look like. Commissioner Wiedower stated that
they must be construction stairs and not the final steps. Mr. Minyard commented that on the
one story house, the stairs look much the same except that they have risers installed.
Commissioner Ripley commented that the commission needs to have more detailed drawings to
review. On his project, he provided working dimensioned drawings for the commission to
review. Mr. Minyard also stated that Adam Melton provided excellent details for the proposed
house so that the commission could make an informed decision.
Mr. Minyard stated that staff signed off on the north façade of the house deleting a window. In
essence, the window would have extended both above and below the landing of the stairs. It
would have required an engineer to redesign the beam, etc.
Commissioner Hendrix commented the juxtaposition of the materials were appealing to her and
made the structure urban. It does not look like that now. If the eight or nine strips of the siding
are not placed as shown, it is not the same. It does not look as she thought it was going to look.
She commented that she drives by it often and thought that it could be something that the
commission could be proud of. She continued that it is not the case.
Commissioner Wiedower commented that on the majority of homes built in Little Rock, the
building inspectors are checking for plumbing, electrical, etc codes, not the aesthetic value of
the structures. MacArthur Park is a different thing. Mr. Minyard stated that in the past while he
has been Staff, they have not had the issues with other builders. This is the most difficult one to
16
monitor. On past items, Staff has stated that they are not comfortable without more drawings or
details provided to the Commission. Mr. Minyard stated that he should say that more often. He
continued that the commission could say for cause, to defer the item so that the applicant can
provide more drawings.
Commissioner Ripley asked if the commission could require a minimum number of drawings to
submit with an application. Mr. Minyard stated that it is in the application. Ms. Weldon stated
that past commissions required the applicants to come back with revised drawings.
Commissioner Wiedower read from page 12 of the guidelines concerning building the structure
to conform to what was approved. Mr. Minyard did say that in Mr. Wilson’s defense, he did ask
staff to come look at the 15th street façade second floor window. Staff did approve a
modification, but he ended up building it as approved. Commissioner Ripley asked what
authority the commission had on this. Mr. Minyard stated that the Planning and Development
could put a stop work order on it. Commissioner Wiedower stated that the commission should
not be adversarial. She suggested that he be called in and a discussion take place with the
changes that have been made. She continued that it should be stated that the commission is
very concerned that it has not been built as approved.
Chairman Peters stated that this project could be stopped and that it would be turned over to
enforcement. Ms. Weldon said that the question was “Is this an enforcement issue?” Ms.
Weldon outlined standard procedures for an enforcement item. Mr. Minyard stated that the first
thing in an enforcement item is to discuss the actions taken that are not in compliance with the
property owner. Mr. Minyard continued that Staff would like to have clues from you as to how to
proceed. Is it siding, steps, height, elevations, singly or a combination of the elements.
Chairman Peters asked about the steps of enforcement. Ms. Weldon stated that there is
protocol for enforcement. Chairman Peters said that he did not think that any of them were
happy with it and asked if the commission had to vote on it tonight for it to be an enforcement
issue.
Commissioner Vanlandingham asked him to come in and talk with staff to get the conversation
started. Commissioner Hendrix stated that the commission should let it go so that he does not
have to file bankruptcy over this item. Chairman Peters stated his opinion was that with the
commission not being happy, can the staff take some initial steps and report back to the
commission at the next hearing.
Staff requests guidance from the commission. He noted that there was a time issue with
construction. Commissioner Wiedower outlined the items to be discussed: The commission is
aware that the drawings do not match what is being constructed, the commission is concerned
on this issue and that should be enough of a prompt for him to discuss changes that would be it
acceptable to the commission. Commissioner Wiedower stated that if he refuses to make
changes, then the commission could in a regular or called meeting, make a decision on what to
do on the issue.
Commissioner Wiedower did not want to incur undue financial hardship to make the changes
necessary. She asked Commissioner Ripley if he thought they were unduly difficult. He did not
think the changes would be an undue financial hardship.
Commissioner Ripley discussed the siding changes and the appearance of the height issue.
Commissioner Wiedower agreed on the height issue. Commissioner Vanlandingham is
concerned on the siding, downspouts that were not visible. Mr. Minyard stated that the
commission knew that the roof was pitching to the north and Staff assumed that there would be
downspouts on the north fagade. Chairman Peters added a concern if the stairs were
construction stairs or the finished product, but the drawings were incomplete.
It was decided that the issues were the siding, the stairs, and the height. Commissioner
Vanlandingham stated that if the HDC started telling new construction that it did not matter what
was out of the view from the street, he was unsure what they would get. Commissioner
Wiedower said the commission was concerned with the streetscape, not what can't seen from
the street. Discussion returned to whether the commission reviewed all four sides of new
construction. Mr. Minyard stated that in the past on new construction, the commission has. On
existing construction, the commission has not. Previous examples were discussed for new and
existing construction. Mr. Minyard stated that he thought it was mentioned in the meeting on
the height of the parapet. He said that he would check the minutes when he returned to the
office. Commissioner Hendrix suggested that for the next case, that the staff work on who
monitors what on new construction.
Ms. Weldon asked the commission to make a motion to guide staff to contact Mr. Wilson.
Commissioner Ripley made a motion to have staff contact Mr. Wilson with the issues addressed
here. Commissioner Vanlandingham seconded. The motion passed with 3 ayes and 2
abstentions. Commissioner Wiedower abstained because she believed it did not require a
formal motion is required to engage in a friendly discussion with the applicant and
Commissioner Hendrix abstained because the issue lies with those that gel paid every day, not
with Page Wilson.
Citizen Communication
No citizens were present.
VI. Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Attest
Chair
Secretary/Staff
17
11 - 09-ao1/0
Date
Date