HDC_12 11 2017Page 1 of 28
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
MINUTES
Monday, December 11, 2017, 5:00 p.m.
Board Room, City Hall
Roll Call
Quorum was present being six (6) in number.
Members Present: Chair Dick Kelley
Vice Chair Ted Holder
Jeremiah Russell
Dale Pekar
Amber Jones
Members Absent: Lauren Frederick
Robert Hodge
City Attorney: Debra Weldon
Staff Present: Brian Minyard
Citizens Present: Stephan McAteer
Karen Fetzer
Reginald Wright
Denise Arnett
Patricia Blick
Brian Minyard, Staff, made the announcement that since there are only five commissioners in
attendance, the applicants tonight could defer to the next month’s meeting and the City would
send the notices. It was explained that for a motion to pass, the motion needs a majority of the
entire commission which is four positive votes, not just a majority of the commissioners present.
Both applicants verbally stated that they wanted to proceed with the hearings tonight.
Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Dale Pekar made a motion to approve the November 13, 2017 minutes as
submitted. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell seconded and the motion passed with a vote of 5
ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge).
Brian Minyard, Staff, noted for the record that the New Certificates of Appropriateness were
erroneously listed under the Deferred items. Notice requirements were met on all of the items
except as noted in individual hearing items. Notice of public hearing was printed in a
newspaper of general circulation, posted on the internet and emails were sent to interested
citizens and the press to inform them of the agenda being posted online.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax: (501) 399-3435
Page 2 of 28
DATE: December 11, 2017
APPLICANT: Karen A. Fetzer, Rotary Club of Little Rock
ADDRESS: 621 E Capitol Avenue
COA REQUEST: Sign
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 621 E Capitol Avenue.
The property’s legal description is “Lot E100' OF Lots 11
& 12 and the N15’ of the E100’ of Lot 10, STEVENSONS
Block, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski County,
Arkansas."
This building was built c 1978. The 2006 survey form
states: “brick veneer installed after original construction.
Iron bars on windows.” It is considered a "Non-
Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur Park Historic
District.
This application is for a modification to the Sign. The
current sign will have a printed metal plate affixed to both
sides of the sign.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On October 10, 1986, a COA was approved and issued to
Howard Williams, Contracting and Licensing Board for the expansion of the existing structure for
office space and storage.
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This application is to cover the existing text and graphics on both sides of the sign with a printed
metal sheet. The existing frame, logo, and lettering is raised about one-half inch. The metal
sheet will cover the entirety of the stucco finished area, including the frame. It will be a matte
finish 3mm thick sheet of metal. The “stucco” finish will be visible on the top of the sign and the
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. One.
Location of Project
Page 3 of 28
edge of the sign that faces Capitol Avenue. No changes are proposed to the brick or lighting of
the sign.
On page 63 of the Guidelines, it states that freestanding signs should be low, small, and
constructed of wood or a non-shiny finish. This matte finish on the metal would be in
conformance with the Guidelines. Nothing else on the sign will change. See excerpts of
Guidelines at the end of this report.
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
1. Obtaining a sign permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. It was noted that the QQA
advocacy group had asked for a copy of the application.
Karen Fetzer, Executive Director of Rotary Club of Little Rock, noted that with their 400
members, they are the largest and oldest civic institution in the city. They have started leasing
Existing sign looking west
Existing raised letters and frame on sign
Proposed sign graphics Contributing and Non-contributing map graphics
Page 4 of 28
space at 621 E Capitol Avenue and are the only occupants of the building.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked how the new sign will be attached. Ms. Fetzer stated
she was not sure, but it would be permanent and not reversible. Chair Dick Kelley commented
on the raised border and a discussion followed on what size and where the sign was to be
attached. Mr. Minyard stated that he has spoken with the sign company and discussed the
raised letters on the existing sign. The quote does not say whether the sign will be glued,
screwed, or how it will be attached. The sign will be a sheet of metal that will cover the raised
border and the current lettering. Commissioner Russell asked that if it is permanent, why not
make something more permanent. Ms. Fetzer responded it was for cost reasons.
Patricia Blick, Executive Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association, stated that the QQA
managed Curran Hall and they are located next door. This plan was shared with the advocacy
committee and there was no objection and they would endorse it as submitted.
Vice Chair Ted Holder made a motion to approve as submitted and Commissioner Amber Jones
seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), and 2 absent (Frederick
and Hodge).
Page 5 of 28
DATE: December 11, 2017
APPLICANT: Reginald Wright
ADDRESS: 1301 Scott
COA REQUEST: Garage and Deck
PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION:
The subject property is located at 1301 Scott. The
property’s legal description is “Lots 1, 2, and the north
half of 3, Block 21, Original City of Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas."
This building was built c. 1887. The 2006 survey form
states: “Original Queen Anne style structure with turrets,
roof decoration and window designs typical of this style.
Several Craftsman additions include porch and large
multi-windowed addition on south. Built by Rozelle, a
building contractor. It was extensively remodeled in
1919-1920 by J. R. Smallwood. Changes in renovation
included porch remodel, attic conversion to 2nd floor,
added sleeping porches & breakfast room.” It is
considered a "Contributing Structure" to the MacArthur
Park Historic District.
This application is for the installation of a Garage and
Deck. The garage will be located on the northeast corner
of the lot with alley access and the deck will be on the
southeast corner of the house. This structure is to be used as a single family residence.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS ON THIS SITE:
On April 8, 2013, a COA was approved and issued to John Emerson for on-site parking, fencing
and bike racks. (The building was used for offices at the time.)
On May 6, 2008, a COC was approved and issued to Taibi Kahler to remove inappropriate roof
structure and repair flat roof.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. Two.
Location of Project
Page 6 of 28
Existing north west corner of house looking east 1978 Survey photo
Existing east elevation Contributing and Non-contributing map
PROPOSAL AND WRITTEN ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION BASED OFF OF INTENT
AND GUIDELINES:
This application is in the area of dual
protection between the CZDC and
the HDC and is required to be heard
by the Capitol Zoning District
Commission. It is placed on the
December 21, 2017 CZDC hearing.
The CZDC will have the final vote on
this project at that time. This
property is also subject to a
Conservation Easement held by
AHPP. See letter of approval at the
end of this report.
The application is for the construction
of a detached garage at the
northeast corner of the property at
the alley shown in the upper right of
the graphic to the right. Attached to
the garage is a lattice screen wall to
the south. The other part of the Site Plan
Page 7 of 28
application is for a deck to be constructed under a second floor living space at the southeast
corner of the house shown in the lower right of the graphic on the previous page. Enclosing the
patio and wood deck will be a new wood fence. AC condensing units will be relocated to the
alley side of the house.
Garage Addition
13th Street Proposed Elevation
Plan
Page 8 of 28
See more graphics at the end of this report. The garage addition will be reviewed using the
Design Guidelines for Detached New Construction of Primary and Secondary Buildings on
pages 31-40 in the December 2016 Guidelines. Refer to Guidelines for specifics. Excerpts of
the Guidelines are attached to the end of this report.
Siting
The Garage is proposed to be placed on the alley property line and 3’ off the Scott Street
property line. With this house originally sited so far back on the lot, there is not ample room to
adhere to the prevailing side yard setbacks of the area of influence neither to move the garage
over towards the center of the block nor to match the existing house setback of approximately
20 feet.
Height
The garage will feature storage in the attic with a pull down stair in a story and a half design.
The garage measures approximately 21’ tall from the ground to the ridgeline of the structure.
This is less than the height of the house. On the 13th Street elevation, the house is ghosted in
to the right of the drawing.
Proportion
The proposed garage does relate well to the house. The overall height is subordinate to the
main house and the numbers of window and door openings are similar in number and vertical
nature.
Rhythm
The placements of the windows are regular and harmonious with the main house. The street
view of the garage roof repeats pitches of the main house and is varied enough to relate to the
house but not compete with the house’s turrets and complicated roof form.
Scale
The scale of the garage is appropriate to the main house.
Massing
The massing of the garage is appropriate to the main house.
Entrance Area
The garage doors will face the alley and there will be three entry doors, one on the north façade
and two on the south. The entry door areas are more utilitarian, without porches which could
reinforce the nature of the building, a garage. The entry door that faces 13th Street should be
raised to reflect it entering at the floor level of the garage. Raising it would make it more in line
with the top of the adjacent windows.
Wall Areas
The existing house has various materials; painted brick on the first floor, cedar shake shingles
as siding on the second floor and vertical trim over what appears to be stucco on parts of the
second floor addition. The siding will be Hardie Panel siding with vertical trim pieces painted to
match the existing house. The garage will have 1 over 1 double hung wood windows on the
13th and Scott Street facades. The windows will be Jeld Wen wood aluminum clad windows
that are 1/1. Window trim will be painted to match existing.
Page 9 of 28
The entry doors will be six panel steel insulated doors, one of which
will be visible from the 13th Street side. Part of the garage will be
visible from Scott Street. Connecting the house to the garage will
be a 6’ tall wood lattice screen painted to match the window trim.
Gates will be installed in the lattice screen to access the front yard
as well as the alley. The doors and windows are arranged vertically
and symmetrically within the wall area. The first and second floors
are easily discernable on the 13th Street elevation.
The light fixtures will be Hampton Bay 7072 wall mounted sconces
in bronze finish as shown on the right.
Roof Area
Roof shingle will match the existing house and the roof pitch will be
12/12. The existing shingles are a novelty architectural shingle.
Façade
With this being an accessory structure, the façade or the front of the building, is not as evident
at with other structures. The 13th Street side will have the most impact on the street while the
Scott Street side is removed from the street and is partially hid by vegetation. The 13th Street
side has the appearance of an accessory structure, possible with useable space above which is
common in the area. The revised drawings show vertical (flush) panel Hardie siding, painted to
match existing house. The cover letter states a different product. This will need to be clarified
by the applicant at the meeting.
Detailing
The detailing of the building more closely matches the Craftsman period of the building instead
of the Queen Anne period. A horizontal belt board circumscribes the building at the base and at
the second floor level.
Site Features
Connecting the house to the garage will be a 6’ tall wood lattice screen painted to match the
window trim. Gates will be installed in the lattice screen to access the front yard as well as the
alley. The gates are shown to blend into the fence. The handicap ramp that is currently on the
northeast side of the house will be removed and new steps will be constructed to the existing
door. See photo on page 2 and graphic on page 10. A concrete patio will be poured between
the house and the garage but will not be visible from the street.
Deck Addition
The deck addition will be reviewed using the Design Guidelines for Alterations and Additions on
pages 27-29 in the December 2016 Guidelines. The deck is proposed to be added to an area
under a second floor living area. This area currently houses the four air conditioner condensing
units. These will be moved to the east side of the house along the alley. The proposed deck will
be a wood deck with steps down to a new concrete or concrete paver patio. The deck may not
be visible from Scott Street, but is included in this analysis. The wood fence to be installed
along the alley way will be visible. It is to be a lattice fence with detail shown on the previous
page.
Wall sconce
Page 10 of 28
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMENTS AND REACTION: At the time of distribution, there were no
comments regarding this application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with the following conditions:
2. Approval of CZDC.
3. Removal of any business signage on the property. This does not include identification
signage of historic name and construction date of house.
4. Obtaining a building permit.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017
Brian Minyard, Staff, made a presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Dale Pekar had
questions about the drawings. Mr. Minyard stated that the applicant should be able to answer
those questions for him. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked if this application was going to
the Board of Adjustment. Mr. Minyard said that it was not going to the BOA. It wa s going to
Capitol Zoning Commission because it was in the overlap area where both commissions protect
property.
Mr. Reginald Wright, representing the applicant, stated that he would answer questions from the
Commissioners.
Commissioner Pekar stated that there was a lot of horizontal siding in the neighborhood but this
has a vertical aspect. One drawing notes this as a flush panel. He said that some flush panels
are non-descript and did not match the neighborhood. Mr. Wright said that they were trying to
match the house and they chose the area of a second floor addition to not compete with the
Queen Anne style.
Commissioner Pekar commented on the board at the bottom of the windows and felt that the
belt board was too high in relation to the bottom of the windows. He also asked if the masonry
at the bottom was faux brick. Mr. Wright said it was the masonry type. He continued that it sits
three feet from the sidewalk. They were trying to fit it in the space. The question arose whether
to have a two or three garage. The Garage doors will be steel insulated garage doors.
Fence Detail
Page 11 of 28
Mr. Wright clarified the client was downsizing and would like to have the cars inside a garage.
Once the garage was detached, and the space between it and the house created a seating area
courtyard. Commissioner Pekar stated that the garage should blend in as well as possible to
protect the area.
Commissioner Russell said he would echo Commissioner Pekar’s viewpoint on the siding.
Being a corner lot, the house has two front doors; the main elevation as well as the 13th Street
side. He continued that the siding is not compatible. He commented on the house at 1300
Cumberland and both had to respect the side yard setbacks along 13th Street.
Vertical board and batten would be appropriate, but a flush siding is not. True board and batten
would be even better. He did have a small issue with the height. He continued that if the man
doors were lost and part of the façade was pushed back, it would be better. He asked about the
details on the deck.
Mr. Wright stated that he would provide details on the deck. It will be a typical construction with
a three foot railing and no intricate details. On the siding, he referenced Wali Caradine’s
detached garage that he thinks butts up to the property line. That is a two story garage building
instead of this one and one half story garage.
Chair Dick Kelley stated that he did not have any heartburn over the three foot setback. 13th
Street is a low traffic street. The layout is more convenient to use the side entrances from the
garage.
Vice Chair Ted Holder asked about the back door to the house. There was a discussion on
where the back door was. The back door is on the east side of the house where the current
handicap ramp is and faces north.
Vice Chair Holder asked about any problem with raising the door on the 13th Street side of the
garage. Mr. Wright stated that is was an oversight and it would be raised to be more in line with
the tops of the windows.
Commissioner Pekar commented on the gate to the front lawn on the west side. Vice Chair
Holder held up the plan view and there was a discussion on the doors to the garage and the
gates from the patio.
Vice Chair Holder stated that he did not have heartburn over the placement of the garage but
did over the siding. Chair Kelley asked what siding he wanted. Vice Chair Holder echoed
Commissioner Russell’s preference for true board and batten. Vice Chair Holder said that it
should not look exactly like but different and that board and batten blends.
Commissioner Pekar stated that board and batten was conventional on garages but the 13th
Street side looked more like a house instead of an accessory building.
Commissioner Amber Jones stated that there was a lot of texture on the house and adding
board and batten would be adding yet another texture. She would rather see shiplap or
horizontal siding. Vice Chair Holder stated that he was not married to one or the other. Mr.
Wright stated that it was no problem to relook at the siding and that it was hard for the client to
decide. He asked how many materials were too many materials on the site.
Page 12 of 28
Commissioner Pekar asked what the probability of a two instead of a three car garage would be.
Mr. Wright again referenced the Caradine garage. He said that cars parked outside would be
more an eyesore than a three car garage.
Commissioner Russell stated that providing some relief to the 13th Street side would be
beneficial. The things that are the most important to this application are the siting, height and
proportion (square and squat), the rhythm (large square openings), and overall mass of low
horizontal façade. He thinks there is a way to resolve issues through design. He said that he
does not think it is an appropriate addition. Mr. Wright stated that the client did not want a roof
that was reminiscent of a low ranch style design. He continued that the height of the garage is
appropriate to the house and the pitches are in keeping with the house. Commissioner Russell
spoke of detailing of the building and looking more carefully at the stucco and cedar shake.
In reference to the Caradine garage, Commissioner Jones added that each property is different
and what works on that property may not work elsewhere. She added that sometimes less is
more.
Vice Chair Holder said that the siting has a lot to do with the use of the door to the house that
faces 13th Street. There was a discussion on the setbacks along 13th Street.
Commissioner Russell viewed a street view of the Caradine garage and he stated that it was not
a fair comparison between the two. Mr. Wright spoke of the Caradine garage in reference to
placement on the lot.
Debra Weldon, City Attorney’s office, stated that this seemed like an amendment to the
application and suggested the opportunity to defer the application. Mr. Wright requested a
deferral to the next agenda.
Commissioner Jones commented on the property to the east using alley for parking. There was
a discussion and it was stated that there is probably ten feet of right of way in addition to the
three feet setback.
Vice Chair Holder said that if it is to be deferred by the commission, the applicant should be told
what the concerns are. Commissioner Russell has done that to some extent as well as
Commissioner Pekar. Vice Chair Holder mentioned the siting as well as the siding.
Ms. Weldon stated that they could defer for more information but they cannot require the
applicant to change the design. If the applicant, after hearing the comments, wanted to change
the design, it would be a deferral by the applicant. Mr. Minyard agreed that this would be a
deferral by the applicant. There was a discussion of the types of deferrals and waving the
bylaws. It was noted that if the applicant requested the deferral, the applicant would send out
the notices.
Vice Chair Holder made a motion to waive the bylaws for a deferral requiring a 5 day notice.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pekar. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes
and 1 no (Russell) with a simple majority required.
Page 13 of 28
Commissioner Pekar made a motion to defer to the January 2018 meeting and Vice Chair
Holder seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 1 no (Russell), and 2 absent
(Frederick and Hodge).
Page 14 of 28
Clarification of the Area of Influence – Arsenal Building - MacArthur Museum of Arkansas
Military History
The City of Little Rock Parks and Recreation Department has filed a Certificate of
Appropriateness for storm windows to be installed on the Arsenal Building for the January 2018
agenda.
In the state legislation, it
mandates that the HDC set
the Area of Influence for
sending legal notices to
surrounding properties.
Currently the area of
influence is stated to be all
properties within 150 feet
plus any additional
properties that are within the
same block as the applicant
that are not already being
notified. If all of the
properties were notified
within 150 feet as usual, at
least 30 properties will be
notified as shown on the
sketch to the right with bold
black outlines, plus the
Arkansas Highway Dept.
which is not highlighted.
150’ from the project would
be the shaded area
immediately surrounding the
building itself. A star symbol
has been placed on the
building for identification
purposes.
The Commission has set a different area of influence at least four times in the past; all for users
that are located in the park. In September 2009, the Commission set a lesser standard for a
marker that was placed in the parade grounds to the south of the Arsenal Building. That area of
influence was set at sixteen properties on three sides of the park plus three users in the park
itself (Arkansas Arts Center, MacArthur Museum of Arkansas Military History, and the Hostel.)
In September 2009, the Commission set a lesser standard for the front lawn renovations. That
area of influence was set at 100’ from the project area which notified about twenty properties on
9th Street, north of 10th Street on both Commerce and McMath and the three users in the park.
In June 2008, the Commission set a lesser standard for signage and a screen around the ac
units at the northeast corner of the Arkansas Arts Center building. That area of influence was
set at 150’ from the project area which notified about nine properties on 9th, Commerce and
McMath and the three users in the park. The first time that Staff is aware of a lesser standard
being set was in September 2006 for the renovation of the fountain in front of the Arsenal
Page 15 of 28
Building. The area was set at 150’ from the project which meant that two users in the park were
notified. It was required that two signs be posted on the site for passersby.
The building sits approximately 380’ from the 9th Street right-of-way (r.o.w.), 500’ from McMath
r.o.w., and 540’ from the Commerce Street r.o.w. The Arkansas Arts Center building prohibits
view of the building from most of Commerce Street. If the area was set only at 150’ of the
project, only the Arkansas Arts Center would be notified. Modifications to buildings that are
visible from a public street must have file for a COA which includes notification of property
owners in the area. However, notifying all property owners surrounding the entirety of the park
may be overkill in in this application. The proper use of notification signs is a must.
This will require a vote of the commission to set the boundary of the area of influence.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017
Commissioner Dale Pekar stated that this was the most important building in the district and did
not want to shortchange the notification for the project. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell agreed.
Commissioner Russell made a motion to leave the existing 150’ notifications in place and
Commissioner Pekar seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent
(Frederick and Hodge).
Page 16 of 28
DATE: December 11, 2017
APPLICANT: Staff
ADDRESS: District wide
REQUEST: Committee for preapplication meeting
During one of the Preservation Implementation Committee meetings, there was discussion of
the possibility of a preapplication meeting between applicants, staff, and commission members
for infill buildings. Staff would like to present this item to the full commission for discussion and
possible implementation. Staff has spoken with Catherine Barrier, AHPP CLG coordinator, and
she is unsure if any other Arkansas CLG practices this mandatory preapplication meeting. She
did mention that Russellville has started along this path, but has not completed it. A call was
made to Kurt Jones, Staff for Russellville CLG, and they have not implemented anything thus
far. Also, see QQA letter attached to the end of this item.
The purpose of the pre-application meeting would be to have a public meeting (meaning that the
press is alerted that a meeting will be held with two or more commissioners present) with the
applicants, the applicant’s architects, designers, commission members, and staff to discuss
upcoming projects on a conceptual level or preliminary design level. This has the possibilities of
several positives. 1) The applicant can save design money and time by discerning what aspect
of the project is of concern to the commissioners, 2) This can save multiple hearings on the
same project that are required by edits and redraws, and 3) This can build goodwill between
the commission and the public by listening and working with the applicants in an informal
environment.
The negative of this would be 1) the tendency of commissioners to design the project for the
applicants, and 2) Some applicant may not be ready for their project to go public at the time of
the preapplication meeting.
There are multiple factors to consider on how this would work.
Mandatory or voluntary: The original discussion was mandatory for all infill buildings.
Discussions could be beneficial for all applicants, rehab or infill. What if they were individually
listed on national register, have conservation easements, are contributing versus non-
contributing?
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
723 West Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1334
Phone: (501) 371-4790 Fax:(501) 399-3435
www.littlerock.gov
STAFF REPORT
ITEM NO. VII C.
Page 17 of 28
Size of project: Do major additions to structures in the district require a pre-application
meeting? What would be the threshold of the addition size? A percentage increase or a
minimum of ‘x’ square feet or whichever is smaller?
Time of meeting: Some commissions have met immediately before or after the regular
hearing. This could stretch out the meeting at the end of the work day, but would limit the
meetings to once a month. With the deadline for filing the Friday before the hearing, Applicants
may be tempted to try to file the next morning and ask for exemptions to the deadline. A pre-
application meeting after the legal ad was published and in the middle of the cycle, could give
the applicant time to finish or revise drawings in time for the normal filing deadline.
Location of meeting: Planning Commission has subdivision meetings in the boardroom with
the addition of tables on the floor of the boardroom which gives you more of a workgroup
environment. Another option would be to have it in the Planning Department conference room
which holds a dozen people.
How many commissioners: The PIC (Preservation Implementation Committee) has three of
the seven commissioners which is less than a quorum. The Planning Commission has 2
committees, the Subdivision and the Plans committee, which are five members out of an eleven
member commission. Again, this is one less than a quorum. These meetings would be
required to have notification of the press because there would be two or more commissioners
present. Discussions in the PIC meetings focused on the members consisting of the Chair, the
QQA representative and the architect.
Any comments made in the pre application meetings would be considered non-binding. Any
applicant may request a pre-application meeting.
The HDC Bylaws state under Article III Officers 1 c:
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.
The Little Rock Planning commission mandates preapplication conferences on Planned Zoning
districts and plats over ten acres. These are with Staff only.
The following text describes other committees and how they are structured.
The Planning Commission Bylaws describe Standing Committees and their role.
A. Standing Committees - Standing Committees may be created by the Planning
Commission and charged with such duties as the Commission deems
necessary or desirable. Such Committees shall be composed of two or more
Commissioners, but less than a quorum of the full Commission, and shall
hold membership for one year or until succeeded.
1. The Subdivision Committee shall be composed of five (5) members
appointed by the full Commission and include Planning Commission
members only. The Committee shall act as a review body for all
conditional use, site plan and planned zoning development issues in
Page 18 of 28
addition to platting matters.
2. The Plans Committee shall be composed of five (5) members appointed by
the full Commission and include Planning Commission members only.
The Plans Committee shall act as a review body for all master plan
elements, ordinance amendments and other project activities as may
occur from time to time as referred by the Planning Commission.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: October 9, 2017
Staff recommends that the commission explore this matter for the above listed variables and
any other so discovered.
COMMISSION ACTION: October 9, 2017
Brian Minyard made a presentation of the item to the Commission. He clarified that this was a
product of the guidelines revision, not the Preservation Implementation meetings. He added an
update on different cities in Arkansas and what they do. Russellville has not implemented these
meetings. Sandra Smith in North Little Rock stated that their attorney has encouraged them to
have these meetings, but no process has been formalized. Fort Smith has a set up similar to
Little Rock. They have other pre-application meetings for zoning and subdivision items. They
are set up by ordinance. They encourage meeting for HDC but there is not a formalized
process.
Mr. Minyard spoke to the time of the meeting whether it is at the end of the public hearing or a
different time and place.
Frank Barksdale, AMR Architects, said that a pre-application meeting would be a good thing to
take a pulse on what could be or would be approved. He thinks that they could get to a rough
design quicker and spend less time on schematic design. He said that it would be a benefit to
design professionals and that a developer may save design dollars.
James Sullivan, AMR Architects, supports the idea of meetings to make adjustments and can
work towards solutions with more input from the Commission.
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell asked Mr. Barksdale if he looked at the guidelines and the
response was yes. Commissioner Russell asked if they found the new guidelines more helpful.
Mr. Barksdale said that they would be more helpful. Ambiguities will always be there, but they
are better than the old ones. Commissioner Russell said that they did not want to design by
committee and beholden to the whims of the opinion. Mr. Barksdale stated that unless you
have a strict code like Seaside, Florida, the guidelines are unable to come up with all of the
possibilities that could appear. He knows that the conversations would be non-binding and
there could be some comfort level or change directions on the design.
Commissioner Dale Pekar asked him if he thought it should be mandatory or voluntary. Mr.
Barksdale said that he would prefer voluntary but may not want to wait for filing deadlines.
Commissioner Kelley said that the 900 Scott Street apartments are looking good.
Vice Chair Ted Holder thought that it would be beneficial to have the meeting mandatory for
larger scale projects. He thought it was a good idea overall, and could lessen anxiety. He
asked Staff whether this would be part of the commission or the whole m embership of the
Page 19 of 28
commission. Mr. Minyard responded that the thought was that it would be three members of the
commission. Three cannot be a quorum.
Commissioner Amber Jones commented that Capitol Zoning District has three meetings on
each item with the advisory committees. She said that it might be better to make it voluntary,
but it may be better for first time applicants to go through the process. They do not know what
they do not know. She can see both sides of the argument. Commissioner Russell related his
experience in working with Jennifer Carmen on the porch renovations on Scott Street. He
would encourage it for any applicant. He recommended going through the guidelines with the
applicants. He mentioned 1014 Rock Street with the roof changes and that it could have
reduced the number of meetings for them.
Commissioner Pekar commented that if the committee liked it and then the whole commission
voted it down, would it be better to have the whole commission present at the pre-application
meeting. Chair Kelley said with a committee, it would be non-binding. Commissioner Russell
added that it would be for the commissioners on the committee to say that they had concerns if
it fit the guidelines, not if they would vote for it or not.
Commissioner Robert Hodge asked if it could delay projects. Vice Chair Holder said that it
depended on how it was set up. Capitol Zoning committees record whether they recommend or
not. This committee will not make recommendations. Commissioner Russell stated they the
committee could make recommendations based on the guidelines, scale, proportion, etc. The
comments would be non-binding and the committee would not be casting a vote on the item.
Vice Chair Holder suggested they only speak of the guidelines, whether they meet them or not.
Commissioner Russell asked if we had minutes of the Pre-application meeting, would those
become part of the record.
Chair Kelley asked for a motion on the item. Commissioner Russell made a motion for the
Commission to explore creating a committee for the purpose of pre-application meetings.
Commissioner Pekar seconded and the motion passed with 6 ayes and 1 absent (Frederick).
Chair Kelley spoke of how this topic would be discussed and when. Would it be working
sessions like the guidelines or do we do it in a public hearing. Mr. Minyard said that it could stay
at the bottom of the agenda until it is ready to present to legal for their analysis. Or, they could
go down the list and continue to discuss it tonight. The commission will need to come up with
some definite answers and language on each of those topics plus others.
The conversations continued with Commissioner Russell suggesting that it be kept as part of
the regular agenda but not have any citizen comment on the items, to maybe close the public
hearing portion and then have the discussion afterwards. He asked if it would be part of the
minutes if it was held after the meeting. Ms. Weldon said that it would be possible to close the
public hearing and have the discussion afterwards but the discussions would be included in the
minutes. Commissioner Russell advocated that the meetings be after the regular hearing and
the committee of three stay afterwards to have the pre-application meeting.
Commissioner Jones commented that if the regular agenda was long, what would happen to the
pre-application meeting items and would they be deferred to the next month.
Page 20 of 28
Mr. Minyard said that it depended on the timing of the meeting. The filing deadline for the next
hearing is the Friday before. The applicants will need time to revise their drawings before the
filing deadline. The question is whether they want the preapplication meeting a full month
before the filing deadline or if they want it two or three weeks before. Commissioner Russell
suggested having at least two weeks to revise the drawings before the filing deadline.
Vice Chair Holder suggested that it be held somewhere else and not be such a formal meeting.
Commissioner Jones asked in the last two years would have benefitted from a pre-application
meeting. Commissioner Russell responded several. She asked Mr. Barksdale if it would have
been beneficial and if he would have attended a pre-application meeting. He responded yes to
both. Mr. Sullivan said that on small jobs, you would need to stress benefits of coming to the
meeting or make it mandatory in some instances. Vice Chair said that some small scale
applications would have benefited from a pre-application meeting.
Chair Kelley asked about the notification of property owners for a pre-application meeting. Mr.
Minyard noted that the press would need to be notified but that no notification of neighbors
would be necessary at that time. The meeting dates could be set in the calendar that was
adopted at the end of the year. A public hearing would be advertised on the city website but
would not require notice of property owners in the area of influence. Ms. Weldon said that she
would look into if the applicants would have to send out two sets of certified mail. She will also
look at other issues before the next meeting. Mr. Minyard added that the pre-application
meeting, by definition, would be before any application would be filed which could make a
difference on what Ms. Weldon has to research. Ms. Weldon asked what would be different in
what Staff has done before in meeting with the applicants before filing. Mr. Minyard said that
Staff would continue to do that, but sometimes the Commission has voted differently than what
Staff anticipated. The final vote is still at the public hearing. The pre-application meeting gives
more voices to the applicant instead of just Staff.
Commissioner Russell suggested that some would be mandatory while some, maybe not visible
from the street, would not be mandatory. He continued that in Savannah Georgia, the process
is three months. The first month is design only, the second month is materials review, and the
third month is the public hearing. The applicants are not allowed to jump ahead in the
discussion by discussing materials in the first meeting, etc. Their three meetings are
mandatory.
Staff was asked to get a copy of Annapolis’s procedures.
Vice Chair Holder said that there were open questions on the timeline of meetings.
Chair Kelley asked Debra Weldon to come back to the commission with the City Attorney’s
thoughts on this, encouraged commissioners to put together some thoughts on the subject and
for Staff to provide some examples. Discussion will continue next month.
UPDATE: November 13, 2017
After the last meeting, the following list of topics to discuss was generated:
Mandatory or voluntary:
Infill
Page 21 of 28
Additions
Individually listed
Conservation easements from AHPP
Contributing or non-contributing
Visible from the street
Size of project:
Small
Large
Percentage of increase of square footage or footprint
Time and date of meeting:
At regular hearing
In the middle of the cycle
Location of meeting:
Board Room
Planning Conference Room
How many commissioners:
3
7
Composition of Committee:
Chair
Architect
QQA Representative
Property owner
Property owner resident
NRD representative
NRD representative
Citizens for open meetings
Language of meeting synopsis:
Non-binding
Becomes part of minutes
Disclaimers
Composition of Discussion:
What not to discuss
Which design factors to discuss
Checklist for applicants
Submittals:
What is too little information
What is too much information
Format
Page 22 of 28
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: November 13, 2017
Staff recommends to get input from the City Attorney’s office before going too far in the
discussion of this item. Working with that guidance from the City Attorney’s office, Staff
recommends that the commission explore this matter for the above listed variables and any
other so discovered.
COMMISSION ACTION: November 13, 2017
Debra Weldon, of the City Attorney’s office, stated the following: The Commission can establish
a Design Review Committee (DRC). The DRC cannot approve or deny any projects. The
committee meetings are subject FOIA. It must maintain documents and are subject to
disclosure. The meetings will not be public hearings; there will not be any public input even
though the public is allowed to attend. The DRC will supplement information to the Commission
based on the DRC recommendation. She mentioned the Planning Commission Subdivision
Committee which determines what is and in not in compliance with the requirements for
subdivisions based on law is rather cut and dry. The HDC determines whether a project is
appropriate or not based on guidelines. The DRC will not have that checklist to review point by
point. It will be difficult for the DRC committee members to give guidance without saying it the
DRC approves of the design.
Ms. Weldon continued to avoid polling of the commissioners; a clear statement in writing will
need to provide disclaimers. She read some proposed language: “With respect to a proposed
construction project in the Historic District, the final decision of each commission member as t o
that project’s appropriateness must be based upon review of a formal application and
consideration of public input concerning that application. Therefore the role of the DRC is to
explain and answer questions about the guidelines as they apply to the proposed project. Any
indication by DRC members stating that the design is appropriate should be considered subject
to change after the required public hearing before the full commission.” This would need to be
read at the beginning of the meetings. The objective would be to help the applicants
understand the guidelines and provide guidance on applying the guidelines to their project.
Chair Kelley spoke of reviewing very preliminary plans or presentation. They should not state
recommendations or if something should be approved or not. The DRC would be interpreting
the guidelines for them and this should not become design by committee. The applicants would
need to provide some basic design concepts for review. He continued that the DRC should
keep your comments general.
Chair Kelley also stated that they need a statement of intent or purpose of what the Design
Review DRC would do for them, maybe incorporate language from the QQA letter. Mr. Minyard
stated that it would be very important for the Commission to have that ‘Statement of Purpose”
as to what the DRC members will do, what the future applicant would provide, what the
limitations of the DRC will be, no statements of the DRC or individual members saying a project
is appropriate or not, and going over those points of the text that Ms. Weldon just read. This
should be provided to the future applicants in writing. The DRC needs to know when they
applicants were coming and they could be given to the Statement of Purpose before they come
to the meeting. The DRC can review the project by going point by point thr ough the guidelines.
He reminded all that this is before they have an application before the commission.
Vice Chair Holder said it would be a good idea to go point by point on the agenda for discussion
tonight. There needs to be a procedure and an application for the pre-application meeting. They
Page 23 of 28
need drawings and something to review. Ms. Weldon said that the DRC may need separate
bylaws, policies and procedures, membership, terms, etc.
Mr. Minyard introduced Director Hendrix and gave her a brief overview of what the topic being
discussed. Director Hendrix stated that this sounded like a good idea.
Mandatory or voluntary:
Commissioner Pekar stated that he thought it should be voluntary on all applications. He thinks
that people will take advantage of the opportunity. Commissioner Russell asked what the
downside would be for mandatory for all applications.
Commissioner Lauren Frederick asked about if the applicants that were familiar with the
guidelines would be required to attend. Commissioner Russell stated that he thought there was
not any consistency in the approval or not of the applications. Smaller projects that applicants
are not aware that the commission would have problems approving would benefit if they
attended the meeting and reviewing the guidelines.
Commissioner Hodge prefers voluntary and it is on the applicant to decide if they want to come
to the meetings. He is concerned about delays.
Chair Kelley asked if the consensus was mandatory on infill and voluntary on the rest.
Commissioner Frederick expressed concern over delaying projects. Vice Chair Holder
suggested mandatory on infill and maybe mandatory on first time applicants. The asked Mr.
Minyard how many repeat applicants that the Commission had. Mr. Minyard responded that the
vast majority were first time applicants. Commissioner Russell said that was not a bad idea for
first time applicants to attend. There needs to be education for applicants to understand the
procedure and the guidelines.
Vice Chair Holder commented about giving input without giving recommendations.
Commissioner Frederick asked about if it was mandatory, when would the meetings happen. It
was stated that would be discussed letter.
There was a motion made to make the attendance mandatory for infill and voluntary for all other
projects. The motion passed 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Time and date of meeting:
There was a discussion on when the date of the hearing was to be held. Mr. Minyard stated that
if it was at the end of the regular hearing, there may be applicants wanting to file retroactively to
meet the past deadline. The calendar will need to be revised to show those dates. There was a
motion to have the meetings 2 weeks prior to the filing deadline. The motion passed 7 ayes and
0 noes.
Commissioner Hodge asked if you could attend multiple pre-application meetings as an
applicant. Vice Chair Holder stated that if it was pre-advertised meeting, why not.
Commissioner Pekar stated that the commission could address it if it became a problem.
Commissioner Hodge stated it could be set up under committee rules. Ms. Weldon stated that it
was an excellent question and the Commission could amend the bylaws if there was abuse of
the DRC.
Page 24 of 28
Location of meeting:
Vice Chair Holder commented that this room is very formal and the discussion should be around
a conference table. The Sister Cites Conference Room was discussed as well at the Planning
Department conference room. Commissioner Russell said that you should base the space on
the number of attendees.
How many commissioners:
There was a discussion on how many committee members were required to hold a meeting.
Chair Kelley asked how many commissioners would be present. It was noted that four
commissioners is a quorum and no votes can be taken on any item. There was discussion on
having two stated positions and rotating or alternate positions on the third. Ms. Weldon stated
that there needs to be people appointed to the committee, not a rotating membership.
Consistency of the advice was discussed if there were rotating commissioners. Discussion
continued on if the final vote was different than the analysis given by the DRC.
Vice Chair Holder asked if there would be a staff report at the meeting and how they were to talk
about surrounding context. Commissioner Russell spoke about how to discuss the items and
Commissioner Hodge raised the point of how far they can go in the discussions.
Commissioner Jones initiated a discussion about materials. Mr. Minyard said it was listed in wall
areas and facades. Materials would be discussed in those design factors. Mr. Minyard clarified
the vinyl siding policy which is to not put vinyl siding over wood siding on historic structures; it
could be approved on new construction. Commissioner Jones stressed that they needed to look
at all details and materials.
It was discussed with new chairs and vice chairs being elected, that every January the
membership my change especially if the architect or the QQA representative was the Chair.
Commissioner Frederick spoke of consistency of the advice from month to month if the
members were rotating and different member’s attitude and experience. Vice Chair Holder
asked if there will be a staff report and what will the DRC be provided. Discussion was held
about what they would need to provide. Commissioner Hodge asked how far the conversation
could go on the guidelines. Mr. Minyard suggested that the discussion be limited to how you
project fits with the guidelines. The design factors were listed in the guidelines in a particular
order. Asking questions of the applicant and discussing the definitions of the design factors
should be beneficial. The DRC may take the tack of saying phrases like ”You may want to look
at the roof shape more before you file” or ”You may want to look at your window pl acement
more before you file”. The commissioners will not want to say something is great and state they
will vote for that.
There was a motion made to have three commissioners on the DRC with the Architect and the
QQA positions being required. Mr. Minyard stated that he believes that the HDC bylaws state
the Chair appoints members to the committees. After the election of officers, the Chair will
analyze if there is any overlap between the Chair and the Architect or QQA positions. The
motion with the Chair appointing members every year passed with 7 ayes and 0 noes.
Mr. Minyard stated that he and Ms. Weldon would analyze what they have now and will present
recommendations at the next public hearing.
UPDATE: December 11, 2017
Below is a summary of the last meeting.
Page 25 of 28
Mandatory or voluntary: Voted unanimously for mandatory on infill and voluntary on
everything else.
Size of project: Not discussed, included in the above.
Time and date of meeting: Voted unanimously for meetings to be two weeks before filing
deadline, time of day to be determined.
Location of meeting: To be determined.
Board Room
Planning Conference Room
How many commissioners: Voted unanimously for three commissioners to be appointed by
Chair. An alternate will be appointed to fill in for absences.
Composition of Committee: Voted unanimously for the Architect and QQA positions
mandatory. The Chair, if not held by the Architect or the QQA representative, will be the third
commissioner. The Bylaws state “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.”
Language of meeting synopsis: The City Attorney’s office stated that “The DRC will
supplement information to the Commission based on the DRC recommendation.” The synopsis
will become part of the staff report and therefore part of the minutes.
Composition of Discussion: Discuss project by reviewing 11 design factors. Commissioners
are not to say whether they support item or not.
Submittals:
What is too little information
What is too much information
Format
Below is a draft of the Statement of Purpose and General Procedures that will be provided to
the public.
Statement of purpose of Design Review Committee (DRC)
The Design Review Committee (DRC), a committee of the Historic District
Commission (HDC), will hold pre-application meetings before an applicant formally
files an application to be heard by the Historic District Commission. This review by
committee members in an informal environment is an effort to review conceptual and
preliminary plans for a project and share concerns with the future applicant. The
committee members will review the projects based on the eleven design factors as
specified in the Design Guidelines. DRC meeting attendance for infill projects (new
principal buildings) are mandatory for applicants while all other projects are
voluntary, but highly recommended. The Commission believes that this pre-
application review will help reduce deferrals and therefore reduce the time a project
takes to get through the process. It is also believed that it will increase
Page 26 of 28
communication between applicants and the Commission on common terms and
processes of the Historic District Commission.
General Procedures
The role of the Design Review Committee is to explain and answer questions about
the guidelines as they apply to a proposed project. With respect to a proposed
construction project in the Historic District, the final decision of each commission
member as to that project’s appropriateness must be based upon review of a formal
application and consideration of public input concerning that application. Any
indication by DRC members stating that the design is appropriate should be
considered subject to change after the required public hearing before the full
commission.
It is anticipated that there would be one DRC pre-application meeting per project.
The DRC cannot approve or deny any projects at the pre-application meetings.
Official approvals, deferrals, or denials will be made at the monthly HDC public
hearings.
The meetings will not be public hearings; the public is invited to attend, but there will
not be any public input.
What is infill? Infill is when a principal structure is added to a vacant lot. The
Guidelines has a definition of ‘New construction where there had been an opening
before, such as a new building between two older structures’.
The DRC will supplement information to the Commission based on the DRC
recommendation.
The Commission believes that these pre-application meetings will not delay projects,
but will be able to review them in the conceptual or preliminary stage before final
drawings are done and commitments are made to the design. This can save the
applicants design time and money.
Rules and procedures
The DRC meeting dates will be on Friday two weeks prior to the filing deadline for
the HDC public hearing.
Application deadlines for the DRC meetings will be one week prior to the meeting
at 5:00 pm.
Applicants must fill out the DRC application form. The DRC committee will not
meet unless there is an application to be reviewed.
No pre-application meeting by the DRC will be scheduled or heard on items that
are currently on the regular agenda for the HDC.
An application form will be developed stating what submittals will need to be
received by staff before the DRC meeting is held. Possible submittals include:
o Site plan or survey showing all current and proposed improvements including
all driveways, parking areas, sidewalks, fences, property lines, and
outbuildings.
o Scalable elevations showing proposed appearance and its relationship to
adjacent and nearby buildings. Perspectives are optional.
Page 27 of 28
o List of all building materials described in the Design Guidelines should be
noted on the scaled drawings, including but not limited to: doors, windows,
awnings, steps, railings, walls, roofs, gutters, chimneys, foundations, decks,
lighting, fences, parking areas, HVAC equipment, solar panels, and signage.
o Current color photographs (all elevations) of property showing its present
condition. Include color photographs of adjacent structures. High resolution
digital images in jpeg format preferred.
o If proposing a material that is not commonly used in the district or in that
application in the historic district, samples should be brought into the meeting.
COMMISSION ACTION: December 11, 2017
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell suggested a work session in mid-January to finish the work on
the pre-application meetings. He noted that forms will need to be made. Mr. Minyard stated
that he received a call from a contractor that was interested in coming to a DRC meeting for a
house on Daisy Bates Drive. There was a motion made by Commissioner Russell to schedule a
work session in mid-January instead of discussing the item tonight and was seconded by
Commissioner Dale Pekar. The motion passed 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and
Hodge).
Other Matters
Enforcement issues
Staff had none to report to the Commission.
Certificates of Compliance
Staff did not issue any this month.
2018 Calendar
The 2018 calendar was presented to the Commission. After discussion, a motion was made by
Commissioner Russell to adopt as amended by striking the first two pre - application meetings.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Pekar. The motion passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0
noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and Hodge).
Election of Officers
Debra Weldon stated that the floor should be open to nominations for chair. Chair Dick Kelley
opened the floor for nominations for Chair. Commissioner Jeremiah Russell nominated Chair
Kelley to another term. Commissioner Pekar seconded. Chair Kelley declined since he is not
going to seek another term and he would only serve a partial term. Chair Kelley nominated
Vice Chair Ted Holder to be Chair. The nomination was seconded and the election of Vice
Chair Holder to Chair passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2 absent (Frederick and
Hodge).
Chair Dick Kelley opened the floor for nominations for Vice Chair. Vice Chair Holder nominated
Commissioner Jeremiah Russell to be Vice Chair. Commissioner Amber Jones seconded. The
election of Commissioner Russell to Vice Chair passed with a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes, and 2
absent (Frederick and Hodge). Mr. Minyard added that the scenario of having the QQA
representative or the architect as Chair has come to pass in reference to the makeup of the
Design Review Committee.
Citizen Communication
There were no citizens that chose to speak during citizen communication.
Adjournment
There was a motion to adjourn and the meeting ended at 6:38 p.m.
Attest:
Chair
Secretary /Staff
Fv1�r 1
1_ -/0��
Date
Page 28 of 28