HDC_07 01 1999City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
1 JULY 1999
MEETING MINUTES
Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon, Vice-Chair
Judy Gardner Charles Marratt Mark Zoeller
Staff: V. Anne Guthrie Anthony Black Margi Gant
Guests: Missy Mcswain Randall Frazier Jay Core Richard Butler
The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll
call was taken; as there was a quorum, the minutes were approved as submitted.
The agenda order was rearranged as the representatives for the public hearing were not present.
Under old business, the topic of non-compliance of approved Certificates of Appropriateness
(COA) was discussed, specifically for properties at 902 Cumberland and 514 East 9th streets.
Staff summarized recent actions, such as the letters to the two property owners, the contact with
the owner and agent of the properties, the discussion of procedures and description of work not
in compliance with what was approved. Letters were mailed to the properties in May and June,
asking for an explanation of their non-compliance; both were asked to appear before the LRHDC
to discuss the issue. A similar letter was sent to the Quapaw Quarter Association, as they did not
obtain the necessary approvals prior to receiving a building permit for repairs to the Villa Marre.
The owner of 514 East 9th and the agent for 902 Cumberland were asked to either write a letter
explaining their actions (i.e., why they did not follow the COA and installed materials contrary to
that approved) or appear at the June meeting. The agent for Graves Lithe, 902 Cumberland,
Raymon Hill, responded by writing two letters in April and May explaining why the approved
glass blocks in the entry ( on the north elevation) were not installed. This was the sole entry
being enclosed, and it was scheduled to have glass blocks; the remainder windows were the
insulated bronze windows. In the architectural survey of the MacArthur Park Historic District,
902 Cumberland is a non-contributing structure.
Hill presented a synopsis of the selection process and explained the rationale of installing the
bronze windows in lieu of the glass blocks. Instead of glass blocks for the north entry, they
thought the bronze windows looked better, would be more uniform and consistent; also, the glass
blocks would take longer to order. Staff talked with Hill on more than one occasion and had
several phone conversations regarding the installment of the windows. Hill made it clear, on
Little Rock Historic District Commission
1 July 1999 Minutes, Page 2
more than one occasion, that the mistake was an honest one, of not knowing that the LRHDC
should be notified of changes. He stated that he did not attend the June meeting as he had
business outside the state. Computer images of the structure were presented: one photo image of
each elevation depicting it prior to their purchase and rehab, other photos depicting what was
proposed and presented last year (i.e., glass blocks with bronze windows) and photos of the end
product without the glass blocks. There was conversation about the project and its subsequent
changes --the rationale of using glass blocks, the installation of the bronze windows, the spacing
of windows, costs differences, etc. After discussion of the changes, options available, the
structure's status, etc., a motion was made to accept the alterations as presented. A vote was
taken and it was approved (4 to 1, with Gardner against).
(NOTE: prior to the 5:00 p.m. public hearing, there was an on-site meeting of the LRHDC
and staff at 514 East 9th to discuss several issues of the project's rehabilitation.) Staff
summarized the subject property, the contact and conversations with the property owner; there
were two letters to the owner, two phone calls and one conversation. While having architectural
drawings prepared by John Jarrard, the end product is not as drawn and does not comply with the
design, scale, materials, etc. Gordon summarized the on-site meeting and listed those items not
complying with the drawings --the front porch spindles; balustrade; skirt; fascia; and gutters.
Kennedy's lawyer, Randy Frazier, addressed the five items specifically of the rehabilitation work
not in compliance with the approved COA. The spindles were designed based on the original
and existing on the second level porch; they are different in proportion with the architect's
drawings. The gutters, while not part of the COA request, were removed as part of the
remodeling; they may be approved administratively. Also, in order to put the gutters in place
requires trespassing on the adjacent property to the west. The fascia was designed from the
original; Kennedy took half of the fascia and reproduced it; they do match the drawings. The
dentils are as drawn and are the original. The porch skirt is original and, as such, has the same
width and profile. From the evidence shown, Kennedy is in violation of the spindles only; while
they do deviate from the drawings, they are representative of the original. He stated that his
client is asking for a variance of the spindles so that those in place on the first level may remain.
There was conversation about the purpose of architectural drawings, and Greer detailed the
reasoning for drawings and how they are utilized in making a decision. Drawings provide a
consistent perspective and are necessary in order to maintain a structure's architectural detailing.
There was discussion regarding drawings, the degree of rehab work, purpose of design,
importance of facade work and preserving a structure's architectural detailing and elements.
Work that is not compatible, doesn't befit a historic structure and is not appropriate, effects
neighboring structures and the historic district; it creates a snowball effect. There was
conversation about the enforcement capability of LRHDC to ensure that the district's
architectural integrity remains intact.
Marratt stated that by its very nature, rehab work is complicated due to several factors as neglect,
design issues, location, etc. The LRHDC is limited in its capabilities and responsibilities
Little Rock Historic District Commission
1 July 1999 Minutes, Page 3
regarding the detailing and complexity of rehab work and cannot deal with the day-to-day issues
and decisions. What should be considered is how to avoid similar situations in the future but
ensure that work is in compliance with the approved COA. The LRHDC needs to be proactive
and not wait until the work is 95% completed before addressing issues that may have done
incorrectly. This project is too far along to deal with the owner in a timely fashion. While
efforts were made to deal with the problems early on, as per the meeting in March to discuss
fascia and the May letter, there needs to be a project check point to confirm that what was
approved is being performed.
Gordon addressed the five issues at hand. The first item was the structure's gutters; it was
decided that the gutters were a separate COA request as no one knows whether or not they were
boxed or external. From the on-site visit, the balustrade and skirt may be determined to be work
in progress; however, the architectural drawings should be followed. Greer stated that the fascia
is similar to drawings and can be modified; and trim may be added to the front porch's skirt to be
more accurate.
Both Marratt and Greer agreed that the only way that the balustrade ( consisting of spindles, cap
rail, plinth rail, posts) can be corrected is to tear down what's been erected and reconstruct it
entirely as drawn. The existing balustrade, that which is in place, is not as drawn: the drawings
call for a spindle that is¾" x ¾" and what's present is about a 2½" spindle; this is more narrow
and doesn't match the proportions of the front facade. The upper balcony balustrade will be in
the second or third phase of work; and its floor decking is what existed prior to work.
This is a contributing structure in the historic district and is prominently sited across from the
Arkansas Arts Center. There is a facade easement on the structure with the state historic
preservation program, who is in the process of updating their easement files.
Adjacent property owner, Jay Core, was present and addressed his concerns about 514 E. 9th.
Due to the close proximity of the two structures, the removal of gutters from the subject property
is creating drainage problems for his. Also, the owner would have been a better neighbor if an
agreement with the involved owners could have been reached to benefit both tenants and owners.
Gordon made a motion to give Kennedy six months in order to bring the balustrade on first floor
to COA specifications and as per the architectural drawings. The vote passed with four in favor
and one (Marratt) abstaining.
Little Rock Historic District Commission
I July 1999 Minutes, Page 4
The sole Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for consideration was:
Applicant: Tim Heiple and Fred Gray, agents
Address: 916 - 924 Commerce Street
Request: Rehabilitation of structure into apartments
Due to her ownership of a condo, Gardner recused herself from the meeting. Prior to the
presentation, Black stated that the agents do not represent the current owners and, because of
that, the LRHDC cannot vote on this application. They can hear the presentation of the COA
application and its request as a concession; once there are new owners, then a vote may be taken;
it was agreed to follow the proposed procedure.
Tim Heiple, as architect, presented the proposed plan. He stated that they were scheduled to
close on the property prior to the meeting, but the closing was delayed; however, there is a
signed contract on the property. The project involves increasing the structure's units to 27
apartments; the roof will be reconstructed with a greater pitch, which will increase the eave
overhang. Balconies will be added to the exterior on all elevations. The 1947 structure will be
rehabilitated entirely; there was brief discussion about the interior changes and the exterior
features were detailed for the group. Issues of on-site parking, landscaping plans and fencing
(security gates in rear) were discussed. Also, it was stated that the distributed drawings are not
final and changes must be made. Greer summarized the project and stated that when the
construction documents are submitted and distributed to the LRHDC members, a phone vote
could be taken of the plans.
The expiration of two commissioners' terms, that of Greer's as architect and of Marratt' s as
property owner, was discussed. Greer submitted a letter asking for reappointment, but Marratt
did not; also, as Gardner recently bought a new house outside of the historic district after last
summer's fire at the Parkview condos, her position as resident and property owner is available.
The advertisement stated that there were two positions available on the LRHDC: that of
resident and that of resident and property owner.
As there was no other business, the LRHDC adjourned at 6:30 p.m.