Loading...
HDC_09 03 1987LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 3, 1987 4:00 P.M. The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Acting Chairman, John Jarrard. There were four (4) members present and one (1) absent (William H. Kennedy, III). The minutes of the last two meetings were approved as received. Commissioner Jarrard stated that the Cashion & Company requested to move to the front of the agenda due to a conflicting business meeting. Request granted. Mr. John Allison, Principal with the Allison, Moses, & Redden Firm, representing the Cashion Company, said that he was there to present an additional scheme for the Cashion Company. He said the scheme involves extending the building to the south in the same style of the existing building. He said the scheme entails reconfiguring and completing the parking lot in order to come up with the requested number of spaces. Mr. Allison said they were actually one space short, but that space will be accommodated in at least one block as mentioned in the letter of request. The same brick and roofing material will be used. Ms. Averial Tate was present to represent herself and her two AMW children who are co- owners of her property. She said their lot #4 is adjacent to this property on the east and extends 75 feet back. She said they would be glad to have the Cashion & Company as neighbors. She said she thought the plans were excellent and she (and her children) would like to see it approved. Mr. Bill Hall, representing the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program, recommended that the application be granted. Ms. Jeanette Krohn, Executive Director of the Quapaw Quarter Association, stated they also recommend that the application be granted for the addition. A motion was made by Commissioner Carfagno and seconded by Commissioner Nichols to approve the Cashion Company application as filed. The Commission unanimously approved the application for Cashion and Company to erect an addition to the existing office. The next item on the agenda was a demolition request at 1016 Commerce by Mr. Leonard Hollinger. Mr. Hollinger spoke on behalf of himself and his wife. Mr. Hollinger said they were requesting permission to remove the house at 1016 Commerce and then later remove the house at 1020 Commerce and construct a suitable residence for them and for their parents. Mr. Hollinger said what they would like to do is remove the house at 1016 to protect himself of any liability. Commissioner Johnson wanted to know what the house was being used for? Mr. Hollinger stated that it was vacant. Commissioner Nichols asked Mr. Hollinger if there was any particular reason he decided to approach the changing housing needs in this fashion rather than selling the house that he has now and moving some place else? Mr. Hollinger said yes. He and his wife both work downtown. He said we go away from the sun every morning and away from the sun in the afternoon. Commissioner Nichols asked Mr. Hollinger if he had looked for a different house in the same neighborhood that might meet their needs? Mr. Hollinger stated that they had looked for another house, but that happened to be their corner. Commissioner Johnson said he was curious about the timetable for not building anything for another two or five years. Mr. Hollinger said that there were two reasons for the timetable, one is financing and the other is the time that would be needed for their parents. He said one thing we do not want to do is to remove the digninity of our parents. AMVA% Commissioner Johnson said that the house from the outside did not look to be in that bad of shape. He said he was curious as to why they wanted to demolish it now? Mr. Hollinger said they had received several bids to remodel the house, but the bids were only to white wash and that was not acceptable. Commissioner Nichols wanted to know what that meant. Mr. Hollinger said that it meant just painting it in the condition that it was in now. Commissioner Carfagno asked Mr. Hollinger if he was aware that the house was in a Historic District when he bought it? Mr. Hollinger said that he was not aware of it. Mr. Bill Hall, representing the State Historic Preservation Program, recommended that the application for demolition be denied. Mr. Hall further stated that the structure is a prime example of the colonial model cottage and of a particular importance to the McArthur Park Historic District. Mr. Hall said it is obvious that it is in need of maintenance and repair work but it appears to be in good physical condition and urged the owner to consider renovation of the building. Ms. Jeanette Krohn, representing the Quapaw Quarter Association, said they strongly recommend that the Historic District Commission deny the application for demolition of the structure at 1016 Commerce. She also stated that the applicant's inten- tions not to develop a lot until 1991 causes them concern, and a change in his family circumstance might mean that no development would ever occur and that demoliton would have been unnecessary. Ms. Krohn said they were not adverse to the applicant moving his structure to a nearby lot. She suggested that the applicant find another house in.the area that is more suited to his needs, or he restore the existing structure and connect it to his house. Mr. Randy Martin, who lives at 1002 Commerce said he thought it was a very significant historic structure in the area of McArthur Park and he would like to see many of those structures bordering on the park remain. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to make a couple of comments about the application. He said he did not think it was the commissioner's place to try and tell the Hollingers' how to deal with their family situation, but it is the commissioner's place and their obligation to try to maintain the fabric in the Historic District. However, Commissioner Johnson felt that demolition was probably one of the worst solutions to this problems. He said there are numbers of options for that partic- ular structure. He said he looked at the structure, it is in need of repair, but it is not the worst structure in the neigh- borhood. He said he hoped the Hollingers would find some other use for the house or work out some other plans rather than demolition. Commissioner Jarrard stated he hoped that there would be some other soltuion to satisfy those building needs rather than damaging the fabric of that neighborhood. Commissioner Carfagno said that she could not see a compelling reason to demolish. Commissioner Jarrard asked for a motion, but Mr. Hollinger asked to say something before the vote. Mr. Hollinger stated that they were not adverse to moving the house some place else. He said we would give it to the commission as long as they pay for any damage of moving that it might do to the structure at 1020. He further stated that they were open for suggestions from the commissioners and anyone in the audience to solve the situation. He said that the residence at 1016 Commerce is in the way. Mr. Hollinger said however, they were open for other suggestions to let it stay at 1016 Commerce. It was moved by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Nichols to the deny the application. The Commission voted to deny the application by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. The next item on the agenda was the Fashion Park Cleaners - request for facade improvements. Mr. Don Renshaw was present representing the Fashion Park Cleaners. Mr. Renshaw stated that the commissioners had some AW sketches of the proposed facade changes at 1101 Cumberland Street. He also stated that he would answer any questons that the commissioners may have. In answer to Commissioner Johnson's question regarding the colors, Mr. Renshaw stated they did not have any colors picked out, but they would like to go with a blue. Commissioner Nichols stated that technically the commissioners don't control paint color, but her concern was that the wrong color could be out of character with the district. To answer Commissioner Jarrard's question regarding the treat- ment, Mr. Renshaw stated that it would be lattice work. Commis- sioner Jarrard stated the reason he asked the question was because the lattice work in the older homes are about 1", or 1/2", or 3/8" wide, and he said we have had lattice work come through that looks like this and end up a 3" square. Mr. Renshaw sated that he would have to get with the owner and make sure that he understood. Mr. Bill Hall, representing the State Historic Preservation Program, recommended approval of the application. He also stated that the AHPP felt that the proposed conditions are compatible with the buildings in the Historic District. He stated that it is AHPP concern too, that with the wrong paint scheme could take on a different look. Ms. Jeanette Krohn, representing the Quapaw Quarter Association, recommended approval of the application. A motion was made by Commissioner Carfagno and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to approve the Fashion Park Cleaner's application. The Commission voted to approve the application by a vot of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. The next item on the agenda was from Madden, Byrlay, and Johnson, Attorneys for restoration of a front porch at 515 Rock Street. Mr. Mike Farney, representing the law firm stated that he had already met with the Commissioners and Mr. Dooley and they were all aware of what was submitted. He said he thought it was pretty much self explanatory and he was open for any questions. Commissioner Nichols stated she wanted to know if there was any reason for changing the dormer or leaving the louvers since it was not mentioned in the proposed narrative describing the work to be done? Mr. Farney stated they thought that glazing the dormer would be more attractive than the louvers. To answer Commissioner Nichols question about leaving the louvers, Mr. Farney said he did not think it would be a problem if they left the louvers. Commissioner Johnson stated that several things had changed from the original building and several things were not noted. He said he was curious about the change of the columns from single columns to double columns and the additional dentil work around jmmk the front porch. He futher stated that the size of the stairway bothered him. Mr. Farney said he would address them one at a time. He said Amikk he believed that it was not the original porch. The brick porch and stairs are possibly around six years old. The brick porch would be replaced by a wood porch. He said the dentil work was added simply because it was the owners request. He further stated that the way the porch is affixed to the front of the house it looks to him like it was an after thought. Commissioner Carfagno stated she had concerns regarding the railing, there were no indications that there was a rail. There was a lengthy discussion regarding this matter and the presenter used photographs as a back-up to his presentation. After discussion and reviewing the photos, Commissioner Jarrard asked that the columns not be full square but chamfered on the edge. Mr. Farney stated that this could be done. Commissioner Nichols stated that she would like to see the flat arch detail of the corner remain and the single columns used. She said she perferred the dentil work not be added. Mr. Bill Hall stated that they (AHPP) recommended reconstruction of the porch incorporating as much as the original facade as possible, especially the brackets. They also recommended that a single column be used in the new design using either a square chamfered column or a column representing the existing column. He said they also recommend that the dentil work be omitted unless evidence can be found to document that it was on the original porch. Ms. Jeanette Krohn stated that they (QQA) recommend approval although there is some concern with the use of dentil work on the front porch. She said it seemed to detract from the detail of the main structure. In answer to Commissioner Nichols question, it was stated by Mike Dooley that they should try and do a motion in the affirmative as to what was submitted and delete those that they feel are not appropriate. Commissioner Carfagno wanted to know if that was changing the appliiation. It was stated by Mike Dooley that the applicant can amend his application to conform with the vote. Mr. Farney stated that they had no objection in changing the roof, no objection to the chamfered columns, omitting the dentil work, but they would like to keep the 2 x 2 rail system. He also stated they had no objection to leaving the louvers in the dormer. Mr. Farney said they would be willing to space the railing 4" as on the new code. A motion was made by Commissioner Johnson to approve the application with the changes and these changes be contingent upon, existing brackets be kept, louviers on dormer be kept, the dentil as proposed be eliminated, 4" crown be used, the roof be a flat seam, the spindles be at least 6" on the center, and the column be chamfered. Motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Nichols. The commission voted to approve the application by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. Last item #3 was.submitted by Dr. N. W. Riegler, Jr., MD, for new construction of a medical clinic at 923 Rock Street. Mr. Glen Henson, Administrator for Riegler Health Serice was present representing Dr. N. W. Riegler. Mr. Henson stated that his purpose was to be of service to the Commission on any details that they may like to discuss concerning their medical practices and point out the need for their new facility. Mr. Henson also gave the Commission a complete layout of the practice. He stated that Mr. Allen Beasley would be presenting the plan to them. Mr. Allen Beasley presented a drawing of the proposal and explained what he felt was necessary for a site plan. He further stated that they would like to get an approval from the committee to get a landscape franchise from the city to do additional landscape in the right -way which further isolated structure. Mr.Beasley said they had worked on the project for several months and they would appreciate the Commissioners support. Commissioner Johnson stated that he noticed the site plan pro- posed was different from the one the Commissioners had in their packet and that the building is now up against the parking lot. Mr. Beasley said they had talked with the City about their parking, and the City felt that because it was a two lane on a diagonal parking space they needed to increase the lane. In turn, they took out the sidewalks. Commissioner Carfagno wanted to know how many entrances there were to the building? Mr. Beasely stated that there was an employee entrance and a delivery entrance. To answer Commissioner Jarrard's question regarding the trees, Mr. Beasley said they could cut around most of the trees. Commissioner Johnson wanted to know about the sidewalks. Mr. Beasely stated that they would build new sidewalks with curb and gutter. He said they were not going to disturb the existing curb around the side. Also he stated that after talking with the people at the City they were told they did not need to remove them. A brief history of Dr. Riegler's practice was explained to the Commissioenrs upon the request of Commissioner Carfagno. Commissioner Johnson wanted to know about the shutters on the lower floor and if that was brick behind the shutters. Mr. Beasley stated that it was, but there will be a construction point there. After a lengthy discussion regarding the application, Mr. Beasley pointed out that they had discussed many alterations of the building and what they wanted was to get some approval on the structure. Commissioner Johnson stated that his main concern was that they have a half block of building wall without really a break. He said this would have a great impact on that street. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Beasley if it would be possible, without changing the interior to have a break in the wall or some type of brick detailing on the side; something that would break up the long span on the south elevation of the alley way from 10th street to prevent the shadow lines? Mr. Beasley stated that they had an alternative plan and presented it to the board. After discussion, it was stated by Commissioner Jarrard that there were some problems with the detailing and the arrangement of the columns. Commissioner Jarrard also stated that he needed more information. Mr. Tom Wilkes with Quapaw Realty stated that he was excited about having the health service downtown, but hopes and recommends that it look as much as possible like a residential structure. He said his strongest request would be the windows. He said he really would like to see live windows in the building. Mr. Charles Maratt who resides at 211 East 10th said that he was speaking for himself and he believes most of the neighbors. He said the ones that he visited with are very much in favor of Dr. Riegler's proposed construction, but their concern was over the powerful mass of the structure and the lack of windows in the middle of what is becoming again very much a residential neighborhood. He also stated that the mass of the structure along the street line both on 10th and on Rock Street seem to project itself and it was too obvious from the street. He said if anything can bedone to add the windows, to add the break in the mass, and give it more of a residential appeal, it might even help stimulate development of more structures in the area. Ms. Jeanette Krohn said that they recommend approval but her reservation at this point is that she was under the impression until now that the foot print of the building could not be changed. Now that she sees that the foot print can be changed, her recommendation is that the applicant use his original design with the proposed changes of the foot print of the building being inset on the south elevation. Also, with the landscape he had proposed. She stated that the QQA did recommend approval because they saw a need for the clinic in the area. Ms. Krohn stated they did not endorse the second plan. Mr. Bill Hall stated they had concerns about the extreme scale and mass of both proposals. They recommended that the brick be a darker color such as a proper red to help reduce the appearance of the size of the building. Mr. Beasley stated that they have already had this backed up by the commission meeting once. He said we are heading in this direction again. He said that Dr. Riegler and his staff are under a hardship now. He said if the commissioners would go down and see how they are operating they would sympathize with the hardship they are under. He further stated that he was directed by the City to go to the Quapaw Quarter and to the Historic prservation Group, and they both approved it. Mr. Beasley said it seemed to him as if they are trying to satisfy five or ten different people and we can't do that. Commissioner Jarrard explained to Mr. Beasley that there are guidelines. He said there was nothing in the code that said it has to be a reproduction of a historic style. But it sets up a certain pattern not just on that corner but in the whole district. The guidelines were to identify the general patterns that would help designers. Commissioner Jarrard told Mr. Beasley what he had presented put everybody in confusion because they have not had a chance to digest it. Also Commissioner Jarrard stated that he had some problems with the detailing. Commissioner Jarrard asked the Commissioners what they would like to do at this point, defer until the next meeting and give him a chance to get the information together, or call a called meeting. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the first and second site plan. Commissioner Johnson encouraged Mr. Beasley to pursue the proposal. He said he would like to see the windows moved down to the first floor and put the shutters on the second floor. He felt that would make a real impact on the structure. After discussion it was suggested to the board by Mike Dooley that they might be able to handle the delaying of the action on the issue by a called meeting, but that would take advertising like a regular meeting, or they could hold an emergency meting which can be done by telephone, or they could adjourn this meeting to another date and pick up from what's on the agenda. He also stated that because of the length of the notification process it might be to the board's advantage to adjourn this meeting without acting on his application and reconvene at another date. Commissioner Jarrard asked for a motion so that they could confer with Mr. Beasley on another design, or deny the application. He said if we are going to vote we need something to vote on. A motion was made by Commissioner Nichols and seconded by Commissioner Johnson to defer the application until an emergency meeting could be called by the Chairman which passed by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. Commissioner Jarrard stated that there were other items of business they needed to go over - old/new busiiess. Mike Dooley stated that it had been requested by the City Attorney's office that the Second Baptist Church Supreme Court Appeal be placed on the October 1 agenda. City Attorney, Stephen Giles said that he could address some elements of the case but he would like for Tom Carpenter to be here. The next item on the agenda was the Certified Local Government Grant for a workshop, presented by Bill Hall. Mr. Hall stated that they were asking for $2,500 through the City to the Arkansas Historic Preversation Program for a workshop. He said they were asking for endorsement of the program., rom scv N"w /Secvfide6l ! Chi:. �W6 A motion was made and passed to endorse the proposal by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. Mr. Hall gave a brief report regarding the Certified Local Government Grant for 1987, which was next on the agenda. A lengthy discussion followed. Mike Dooley explained to the commissioners that the workshop will not require a local match but the Grant for 1987 will require a match, and that his responsibility would be to get it to the City Board of Directors and try to get them to appropriate the money. 27Ob, c.K, Further questions and discussion regarding this matter were presented. I rwoLk -A 1 L •h ,� �adLLt, (p,, { 0 , :, / After discussion a motion was made and vote passed to adopt a resoultion to endorse the w &"aAep by a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. The next item for business was the brochure to Historic District property owners. It was stated by Mike Dooley that they did not have much to discuss because he was still working with the County trying to get a list of property owners. Commissioner Nichols stated that she had a list but she could not give it to Mike until she took out what she needed. Item E, the election of officers was moved by Commissioner Nichols and seconded by Commissioner Carfagno to elect Commissioner William Kennedy, III for Chairman and Commissioner Thomas Johnson as Vice-Chairman. This motion was unanimously approved by those Commissioners present. There was some discussion on item F regarding staff's need for a local prerservationist. It was agreed to further discuss this item at the next regular meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was ajourned at 7:30 P.M. The next item on the agenda was the Certified Local Government Grant for a workshop, presented by Bill Hall. Mr. Hall stated that they were asking for $2,500 through the City to the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for a workshop. He said they were asking for endorsement of the program. A motion was made by Commissioner Johnson and seconded by Commissioner Nichols to endorse the proposal. It passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. Mr. Hall gave a brief report regarding the Certified Local Government Grant for 1987, which was next on the agenda. A lengthy discussion followed. Mike Dooley explained to the commissioners that the workshop will not require a local match but the Grant for 1987 will require a match, and that his responsibility would be to get it to the City Board of Directors and try to get them to appropriate the $2,700.00. Further questions and discussion regarding this matter were presented. After discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner Carfagno and seconded by Commissioner Nichols to adopt a resolution endorsing the grant. It passed with a vote of 4 ayes, 0 noes, 1 absent. The next item for business was the brochure to Historic District property owners. It was stated by Mike Dooley that they did not have much to discuss because he was still working with the County trying to get a list of property owners. Commissioner Nichols stated that she had a list but she could not give it to Mike until she took out what she needed. Item E, the election of officers was moved by Commissioner Nichols and seconded by Commissioner Carfagno to elect Commissioner William Kennedy, III for Chairman and Commissioner Thomas Johnson as Vice - Chairman. This motion was unanimously approved by those Commissioners present. There was some discussion on item F regarding staff's need for a local preservationist. It was agreed to further discuss this item at the next regular meeting. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. NTM Page 9