HDC_01 25 1990City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
JANUARY 25, 1990
10:00 A.M.
A Special Meeting of the Little Rock Historic District
Commission was called to order at 10 a.m. A quorum was
present - Mr. William Kennedy, III, Ms. Cheryl Nichols, Mr.
Thomas Johnson, and Mr. John Jarrard. Also present was City
Attorney Mark Stodola and Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of
Planning.
Chairman Kennedy opened the meeting-by stating that they
were there to reconsider the previous application of the
University of Arkansas regarding renovation and
rehabilitation of buildings in the MacArthur Park District -
future home of the University of Arkansas School of Law.
Chairman Kennedy reminded the Commission that they had
previously taken action on the application but were advised
by the City Attorney, Mark Stodola, that the action taken
was not permissible.
Chairman Kennedy stated that the letter he had circu-
lated was a letter addressed to Mr. Stodola from Mr. Gary
Chamberlin President of the University of Arkansas, which
addresses the University's differences. Upon the advice of
Mr. Stodola the letter was made part of the record.
It was stated by Mr. Stodola that originally the
reconsideration dealt with the scope of the Commission's
authority for requiring an applicant to expend funds for
various issues. Mr. Stodola told the Commission that they
do have the authority to determine whether to grant or deny
a certificate of appropriateness based on the application
and facts presented.
To answer Commissioner Johnson and Kennedy's questions
regarding lighting, Mr. George Wittenberg presented drawings
to point out where the lights were actually located and what
kind of lights would be around the parking areas. Also
there was some discussion regarding the University cost vs.
the City cost as well as the lights and the number of lights
they were actually putting in and the number they were
replacing.
After discussion on the cost of lighting, it was stated by
Commissioner Jarrard that he thought that they were asking
for lighting across the street front and not around the
parking lot to tie in with the bond money lighting. He said
that the lights that are there now were put there by the
City Park's Department.
Chairman Kennedy pointed out to the University that the
Commission saw a proposal which involved two structures
being torn down, and he understood the Commission's
statutory authority allowed them to forbid demolition. He
stated that the Commission's previous action asked the
University to move the building. Since that time, the
Commission has been informed by the City Attorney that the
Commission could not require them to move a building.
Chairman Kennedy stated that the letter that was written on
January 16 does not clarify what position the University
wants to take in regards to demolition. He said that if it
can be sold, then they needed to get everything out on the
table and see what people are willing or not willing to do
so the Commission can make a decision.
Mr. Shelton said that he thought the project itself said
what will occur. He pointed out that the letter did say
they would make a good faith effort to have the house
removed to another site.
Chairman Kennedy said that was exactly what they were trying
to find out -what the University believes to be a good faith
effort. And pointed out that none of the Commission members
know the demolition or construction schedule.
Mr. Shelton said he could not give an exact time or date.
After discussions regarding time frame, Chairman Kennedy
summarized the discussion by stating that the bid procedure
would require 2 weeks to 30 days notice.
To clarify Chairman Kennedy's question regarding conditional
demolition, Mr. Stodola said that the Commission did not
have the authority to require the State to expend funds to
relocate the building. They have asked for demolition of
the structure and the Commission is to either to approve
demolition or deny demolition.
Ms. Elissa Gross with the Quapaw Quarter Association was
present and expressed the Association's interest in the
Bentley House.
Mr. Byl Harriell who owns property in the area said that he
would rather see a well lighted parking lot just outside of
his front door, secured by the University security force and
that would enhance his property as well as the parking lot
across the street. He also said that he would love to see
the electrical wiring go underground, which this parking lot
would require.
2
To answer Commissioner Jarrard's question about exactly what
they were voting on, Chairman Kennedy said that their
previous action on the application was not proper. This
being so, they were now to reconsider. He also pointed out
that there has not been a formal change or amendment of any
kind by the University. Chairman Kennedy also stated that
since they were acting on the original application, that
Commissioner Johnson could either withdraw his motion which
was the basis for the first action, or he could start fresh
or amend that motion.
To answer Commissioner Johnson's questions regarding the
letter, Chairman Kennedy stated that the letter specifically
states that it is not to be considered as an amendment to
the application, but part of the record.
Mr. Stodola pointed out the four conditions that were
previously placed on the Certificate of Appropriateness:
being; (1) The Bentley House and garage be relocated; (2)
the BEI Building (the tower portion, not the additions) be
roofed and mothballed to protect it for possible future
development; (3) that lighting along McAlmont Street be in
accordance with the plan for the MacArthur Park historic
lighting; (4) the sign be conditional upon the outcome of
the research on the David O' Dodd marker, and if the
research indicates that the marker is in the exact location,
that the sign be relocated.
Chairman Kennedy stated that those were points that
concerned them the last time they considered the
application.
Commissioner Nichols stated that the marker issue was
resolved and needed no further discussion.
After much discussion regarding the lights, City Attorney
Stodola advised the Commission that they did have the
ability to attach as a condition to their Certificate of
Appropriateness language that deals with the general
arrangement of light fixtures.
Commissioner Nichols said that she would like to discuss
formulating a condition requiring the Law School to
thoroughly investigate using period fixtures and reflect
that in their plans.
Mr. Stodola pointed out that the Commission did not have
the authority to deal with the cost, but could regulate
design of the lighting.
Mr. Shelton asked if they could have separate motions from
the group and requested the groups get together and look at
future plans for the area.
3
It was stated by Mr. Lawson that this needed to be resolved
today.
Chairman Kennedy stated that Mr. Lawson was part of the City
staff and was here on Ms. Satterfield's behalf. Mr. Lawson
stated that he would like to see the Historic District
approve the Certificate with two conditions attached. (1)
that the Bentley house and garage be free from demolition
for a period of 90 days and if it is not resolved by the QQA
and City then the University could tear it down and (2) the
period lights to be put in front of the building. Also he
said that he did not feel that they should hold the BEI
building up if the University of Arkansas wanted to go ahead
and demolish it.
Mr. Fred Harrison, with the University, stated that he
accepted Mr. Stodola's interpretation and the Commission's
authority to issue a Certificate with conditions.
Chairman Kennedy stated to Mr. Lawson that he appreciated
his response and what was perceived to be staff position.
Commissioner Jarrard said that his personal opinion has been
that the large structure not be destroyed, but he would not
oppose a motion that would allow it to be demolished.
Commissioner Johnson stated that they needed to look at the
whole picture. He agreed that the Law School would be a
great advantage to the Historic District.
Commissioner Nichols stated that she agreed also and that it
is a very important project. She did not want to stand in
the way to the extent that it would not go forward. She
said she wished the University had come to the Commission
when their plans were first being developed so that they
could have ironed out some of these things up front before
the budget was set.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he hoped that they would
allow minimum time for groups to get organized to accept the
Bentley Cottage for rehabilitation.
After discussion of the previous motion with conditions, a
motion was made by Commissioner Jarrard to approve the
project with the following conditions: (1) the Bentley
house demolition be delayed for 90 days from this date in
hopes of finding a suitable way to move it, and (2) that the
general design of the lighting be in line with the Historic
lighting style that is being developed by the City for the
downtown area.
Chairman Kennedy asked Commissioner Jarrard if he was
specific enough about the kind of lighting he wanted.
Mr. Stodola stated that it was important that he clarify if
he was talking about period lighting along public rights of
way adjacent to the park or different kind of lights.
Commissioner Jarrard added to his motion that the lighting
would be along the street front of McAlmont only and that
Spring City Electrical Manufacturing has been used by the
City. Chairman Kennedy asked for a second. Motion failed
due to lack of a second.
Mr. Jim Daily, City Board Director was present. Mr. Daily
stated that he wished there was some way the Certificate of
Appropriateness could be approved. He said that he had been
personally assured by Mr. Gary Chamblerlin that the
University would cooperate with the Commission and the City
to accomplish the objectives in the district. Mr. Daily
assured the Commission that he would see that those things
are accomplished by the University..
After further discussion, a motion was made by Commissioner
Johnson to approve the application with no conditions and
with the request that the University work with its neighbors
and the park and with the City to coordinate street lighting
and also with the request that the Bentley Cottage not be
demolished for 90 days. Motion was seconded by Commissioner
Nichols. Motion passed by a vote of 3 ayes and 1 nay.
Commissioner Jarrard stated that he had read the charge in
the ordinance and he could not support the motion and be
true to what they were supposed to be doing on the Historic
District Commission. He felt that the project was wonderful
and would be grand for the City, but in looking at their
charge, it would not be in keeping with what they should be
doing.
There being no further business before the Commission, the
meeting was adjourned at 11:45 a.m.
nm
5