HDC_01 06 2000City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
6 JANUARY 2000 MINUTES
LITTLE ROCK
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Commissioners Present:
John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon Jean Ann Phillips
Wyatt Weems Mark Zoeller
Staff: V. Anne Guthrie Margi Gant Anthony Black
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 unanimously.
The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application item was:
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Address: MacArthur Park
Request: Relocation and new construction of bathrooms
Matt Gardner presented the application for the relocation and new construction of bathrooms in
MacArthur Park. Additional photos were presented to illustrate the proposed new location of the
restrooms and their proximity to the Arsenal, parking lot and the Arts Center. This project is part
of the city's settlement with the insurance company for tornado damages (the old bathrooms,
located by the pond, were damaged by the tornado and were demolished). There was discussion
about the restrooms being better located to the park activities. Details of the new construction
were discussed, such as its size, materials, lighting, location, maintenance and operations.
Greer commented on the structure, in regards to its stone facade; he stated it is too much of a
contrast for the area and that brick would be more appropriate. Discussion focused on the
selection of brick color and the importance of it blending with the Arts Center and Law School.
No one was present to speak against the new construction; staff recommendations were read into
the record. There was a motion by Zoeller to approve the request contingent on substituting
brick instead of stone for the facade; it was approved unanimously.
Little Rock Historic District Commission
6 January 2000 Minutes, Page 2
The second COA application for consideration was:
Applicant: Art Place, LLC
Address: 916 - 924 Commerce Street
Request: New fence, signage, landscaping and improved parking
Tim Heiple presented the application and gave an overview of the project request; additional
plans on the larger scale were available for the discussion and detailing. The organization
purchased the land to the west (i.e., the northeast comer of 10th and Rock streets) and are
expanding the parking to the west. A request to abandon the alley from 10th north to the middle
of the block was approved by the city's Board of Directors; the abandonment allows for the
expanded parking due west of the apartments and incorporates the abandoned alley. The
required landscaping and parking have been approved by the city. Fred Grey, as partner, also
presented additional information regarding parking, fencing, etc. The fencing on the apartment's
west side will be wood, and there will be iron fencing along the front yard, on the north, east and
south sides. The extant alley curb cut ( on north side of 10th) will be widened to serve as the
driveway for the improved parking area. There was details about the proposed sign on the front,
or east, elevation; it will have either a fountain or planter in the center; the lettering duplicates
that which is on the building. Staff recommendations were read. Gordon made a motion to
approve the request as submitted; it was approved unanimously.
The last COA for consideration was:
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Address: 1422 Rock
Request: Demolition of structure
Barbara Hyatt, City of Little Rock Code Enforcement Supervisor of Operations, presented an
update on the structure and its inclusion on the city's unsafe structures list. The property owner
is before the environmental court due to the structure's need to be boarded and secured; the
environmental court judge is waiting for the LRHDC' s decision before it is presented to his
court. Copies of the required structural condition were passed around; staff provided an update
of the structure's past requests, deferrals and requested information: costs for rehab, structural
condition and assessment and the extent of deterioration; the structure would have to be rebuilt
completely. The owner made it known to staff that he will make no further financial investments
into the structure. Hyatt explained the city process for demolition of structures damaged by last
year's tornado. There was discussion about the application request for a new roof and its
condition prior to the tornado. There was a motion by Weems to approve the request for the
demolition of 1422 Rock; the vote unanimously approved its demolition.
Under Old Business, the previously approved, though non-compliant, COA at 1000 Rock, was
discussed. Note: prior to the meeting, the LRHDC met on site to inspect the structure and its
non-compliant windows; the owner's representative was notified prior to the visit but could
not be present. Part of the COA request was to install new windows on the front porch's east
elevation and replace the inappropriate aluminum windows with wooden, floor-to-ceiling type,
emulating those at the Bragg cottage on Scott Street in terms of size and proportion. While it
was agreed that the floor-to-ceiling windows do not meet code, Greer stated that in his opinion,
Little Rock Historic District Commission
6 January 2000 Minutes, Page 3
aesthetically, the size of the front porch windows is proportional to the other existing windows in
terms of height and width. The window details are maintained by duplicating the casing, trim
and sill on the front two porch windows to match existing; what is quite apparent to Greer is the
mutins or the vertical dividing strips. Vinyl windows have the snap-on mutins and do not have
the different panes of glass; there is one glass pane with clip in grid. As the mutins are not true,
there is no depth perception and no dimension to the windows. This detail is quite apparent on
the front facade of the structure. While it is not detrimental to the overall design, the lack of
detailing is obvious. Storm windows were installed over the vinyl ones and are noticeably darker
than the other storm windows.
The guidelines state that the snap-on grid/panes are not recommended. If the vinyl windows are
allowed, it would establish a precedence. On page 59, the guidelines state that: windows should
be preserved in their original location, size and design and with their original materials and
numbers of panes; if windows are replaced, the replacement should be in-kind to match the
originals in material and design; should not have snap-on or flush mutins; and should not have
security bars where visible from the street. There was discussion on enforcement, procedures,
design guidelines and interpretation of the exterior appearances of structures, as viewed from the
street. With the rehabilitation of older houses, attention to details, such as windows, is a
significant architectural aspect.
Discussion also focused on a related window feature of the structure and that is the existing
security bars on the windows; also discussed was the air-conditioning unit located on the north
(street) side of the house. The guidelines state that security windows "should not be located on
primary facades and on windows visible from the street." Also, the guidelines state that
mechanical equipment "should be located on the rear facade; be located where not readily visible
from the street; and if visible, should be screened with shrubbery or fencing." Gordon made a
motion that within six months, the applicant must:
♦replace the front porch vinyl windows with windows of materials as listed
on the original COA (wood sash); the windows must retain the existing
dimensions in terms of shape, size and proportion
♦screen or fence the air-conditioning unit on the north side; it must be
approved administratively prior to installation
♦remove the security bars on the windows
It was approved unanimously.
The next item for discussion was the siding construction technique on the garage at 1001
Cumberland. Staff stated that, as requested, the required letters were mailed to property owners
within 150 feet; there were no objections to the construction technique either to the staff or to the
property owner. Gordon made a motion that since the owner completed the required
notification and satisfied the LRHDC (notices were mailed December 14), that the
alteration to the original COA should be accepted. It was approved unanimously.
Little Rock Historic District Commission
6 January 2000 Minutes, Page 4
Also, while inspecting the 1000 Rock site, the LRHDC visited the west side of the 900 block of
Scott, which is non-compliant due to the asphalting of two or three driveways and a parking lot.
The driveways are located at 914, 918 and 920 Scott Street; the parking lot is on the southwest
comer of 9th & Scott streets. A neighbor called about the asphalting and asked whether it was
permitted. The on-site inspection of the block revealed that: two or three driveways and the
southwest comer of 9th and Scott streets were asphalted; also at the parking lot, asphalt was
poured up to the curb on Scott, in a location that is not a driveway and does not have a curb cut.
Staff presented the guidelines and the issue of asphalting, which is not allowed: driveways
should be gravel or concrete tracks or narrow strips where visible from the street; driveways and
their original designs, materials and placement should be preserved; paving should be gravel or
smooth concrete instead of asphalt, aggregate or brick for houses; parking lots should be gravel
or smooth concrete instead of asphalt; parking lots on comer lots should have edge screening on
both the primary and secondary streets.
Staff reported that she had talked with the owner, Mary Buchanan, on two occasions about the
asphalt; the owner stated that she did not know to contact the LRHDC for approval. Also, there
was no permit pulled for the asphalt work. As requested by staff, the owner wrote a letter
addressing what was done to the properties ( copies were provided). According to the ordinance
and guidelines: the owner should have requested approval to asphalt the driveways and the
parking lot; along with the parking lot is the required landscaping; and, a new asphalt driveway
should have the curb cuts approved by the city and the LRHDC. Again, there are no curb cuts
for the new asphalt driveway on Scott. The use of asphalt for driveways is not recommended.
Discussion focused on the block's west side, regarding the siting of outbuildings, driveways,
layouts, etc. It was decided that a letter to the owner be written recommending that she make
application for a COA and come before the LRHDC with an after-the-fact request to asphalt the
specified areas.
The last agenda item was 514 East 9th, installation of a chain link fence in a rear yard. While a
permit was obtained for the fence, staff did not approve the permit. The property owner, Jay
Core, appeared before the LRHDC at its November meeting. A 26' wooden fence and gate were
installed in the rear yard of his property at 512 E. 9th; included on the permit was the installation
of a 35' chain link fence (to the east, connecting with an existing chain link fence) behind the
property at 514 East 9th. While a permit was issued, the chain link fence does not meet the
criteria of the design guidelines, which state that chain link may be "located in rear yards where
not readily visible from the street if dark green or black and screened with hedge, ivy or other
creeping cover." Greer, after consulting the guidelines, stated that a letter should be written to
Core regarding the recommendations and that he be given six months to comply with the
guidelines; administrative approval must be given prior to action. The requested letters for the
above-listed property owners will be written by staff with LRHDC approval.
As there was no other business, the LRHDC meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.