HDC_07 02 1998City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
2 JULY 1998 MEETING
MINUTES
Commissioners Present:
Judy Gardner Howard H. Gordon John Greer
Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller
Staff Present: V.Anne Guthrie Tim Polk Tony Black
Guests: Richard Butler Jason Rinehart
The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to
order by staff. Roll call was taken. Nominations were made to elect John Greer as
Chair and Howard Gordon as Vice-Chair; both votes were unanimous. Chair Greer
presided over the meeting. As all commissioners were present, the minutes from the
previous meeting were approved.
The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application, deferred from June, was:
Applicant: Marsha Taul
Address: 1305 Cumberland
Request: Retain existing vinyl siding on the north elevation
Greer asked that the Staff Report be entered into the record. Guthrie read the report
containing the background, analysis and neighborhood impact of applicant's request.
Rusty Sparks, Taul's counsel, introduced himself as representing the applicant. He
presented a summary of his client's application and the 1997 decision to allow artificial
siding only on the east elevation and to remove the existing artificial siding on the north.
He stated that his client is reapplying for consideration of the removal of the vinyl siding,
i.e., to retain the existing siding on the north elevation, based on five reasons:
(1) its removal would create a substantial hardship for the applicant; (2) its
removal would damage the wood underneath; (3) there is little architectural
integrity to the north elevation; (4) in keeping the vinyl siding, there is
minimal degradation to the overall architectural character of the district;
and (5) forcing the removal of vinyl siding appears to be selective
enforcement and discriminatory.
Sparks stated that the applicant regretted not obtaining a building permit and a COA, as
it was her intent to rehab the structure and make it look nice. He stated that the
removal of vinyl siding does not benefit the city or historic district and should be
Little Rock Historic District Commission
2 July 1998 Minutes, Page 2
considered based on weighing and balancing of applicant's needs with the overall good
of the district. He then detailed each reason to retain the existing vinyl siding. Also, he
stated that the structure's architectural integrity was compromised dramatically when
the window on the second level was installed by the previous owner.
A letter from Joseph Brown was entered as an exhibit regarding potential damage to
the wood siding if the vinyl were removed. Numerous houses in the historic district
have siding and photographs of those with artificial siding were presented as exhibits.
Sparks stated that in his opinion this is selective enforcement, as the LRHDC has not
forced the removal of artificial siding on these structures. Several exhibits were
presented to the LRHDC for their review: photos of various houses in the district,
detailing on the subject structure and letters of support. The counsel introduced Andy
Hicks, architect. He lived on Broadway for several years and was present to testify to
the advantages of vinyl siding.
Commissioner Marratt gave an overview of rehabilitation and raised the issue of
consequences for those who ignore city and district process (i.e, not getting building
permit or a COA). Gordon stated that it is important to get information about the district,
its regulations and guidelines to property owners, home buyers and the public.
Discussion focused on historic district regulations, and specifically, the application of
artificial siding. Black read into the record past COA requests for siding. He stated that
structures with artificial siding prior to the district's creation are allowed.
Two witnesses, both neighbors, were present in support of the request. They spoke of
siding for insulation purposes, and how siding has helped the appearance of the
structure's exterior. There was no opposition to the request. There were questions
regarding the applicant's claim of economic hardship in the removal of the siding;
whether she had anticipated the costs to repair the rental property (she owns two other
rental properties) and whether the rehab costs were more than anticipated.
Commissioner Gardner asked whether there were estimates for repairing the wooden
siding if the artificial siding is removed --there were no estimates.
Greer discussed issues from the 1997 application and the architectural ramifications of
artificial siding on the structure as the: north elevation is visible from the street; artificial
siding on northwest cornerboard is vinyl, has irregular junction and does not match;
artificial is a shiplap design and doesn't match the wooden clapboard; the purpose of
the skirtboard with dripcap is removed; soffit trim, usually visible from street, is removed
completely; and the removal of window trim. He discussed concerns of artificial siding:
vinyl siding attracts condensation between wood and artificial; as it acts as sealer, it
causes wood to rot and increases mold and mildew; if siding is not properly installed it
harms the structure's infrastructure; and fading of artificial siding colors.
Little Rock Historic District Commission
2 July 1998 Minutes, Page 3
Greer cited the Secretary of Interior's Guidelines and the district's design guidelines
for modifications in terms of the compatibility of proportion, rhythm and facade and
accompanying architectural details. He asked that the letter from Sarah Brown,
Executive Director of Quapaw Quarter Association (QQA), be entered into the record,
as they receive an agenda packet and provide comments on application requests; QQA
supported the retention of vinyl siding on the north.
The project's staff recommendation was read into the record, which was to approve the
request to retain siding on the north elevation with conditions. Other discussion
focused on the removal of the apron and dripboard and the time period in which to
accomplish the conditions. Gordon made a motion that the existing vinyl siding on the
north elevation of the building remain with the condition that the soffit and dripboard be
added and that the wraparound on the northwest cornerboard be removed to more
closely match the wooden siding. The conditions must be in place within six months (by
2 January 1999). The motion was seconded; the vote unanimously approved the
request with the conditions and time period.
The second Certificate of Appropriateness (GOA) application was:
Applicant: Michael Preble
Address: 1006 Rock
Request: Demolition of structure
Before the application was presented, Guthrie (being part owner with the applicant) left
the room, as did Marratt who recused himself from the application's consideration. Polk
read into the record the staff recommendation. For clarity, Black confirmed that there
must be an unanimous approval by the three remaining commissioners (chair not
voting) for the application request to be approved.
Preble presented a summary of his request. He detailed the reason for Marratt's letter
being in the LRHDC package, for Inspector Rick Purifoy's appearance regarding the
structure' safety and the engineer's analysis. He stated that the structure is not a good
example of Colonial Revival architecture, as compared to presented photographs of
better architectural examples in the district. The structure's dilapidated condition
started years ago and has been vacant since 1980; the applicant assumes no
responsibility for its present condition but regrets that the previous owners let this occur.
There were questions as to when he acquired the property (1997), whether efforts were
made to sell or rehabilitate the structure (yes) and whether there were objections to the
applicant's request (none). Purifoy stated that he inspected the building and
summarized its structural condition; it was upgraded from Category 3 to 2 (not
economically feasible to rehab) on the city's "Listing of Unsafe and Vacant Structures."
Little Rock Historic District Commission
2 July 1998 Minutes, Page 4
There was discussion regarding the condition of the structure, lot size and letters of
support. Gordon made a motion to approve the application as submitted; the vote was
unanimous approval. (NOTE: while not read into the record, it should be entered that the QQA
supported the demolition due to the structure's condition)
The New and Old Business agenda items were addressed. Gardner asked that
technical testimony be limited in time; Black commented on the legality of testimony and
made recommendations when future discussions become lengthy. Also, at the next
meeting there will be a report regarding 1304 Cumberland and its compliance with the
regulations of both the LRHDC and Capitol Zoning Commission.
Referencing Taul's application and accompanying photos of structures with illegally
installed artificial siding, Gordon asked to docket 1417 Cumberland Street, and its
appearance of siding on the rear, for the next meeting. Guthrie and Purifoy will confirm
whether the structure has artificial siding. The enforcement capability for the individual
structures is dependent upon whether or not siding was in place prior to the district's
creation, if it received LRHDC approval or was installed without approval.
As there was no other business, the LRHDC adjourned at 7:00 p.m.