HDC_08 03 2000City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
3 AUGUST 2000
MINUTES
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon
Wyatt Weems Mark Zoeller
Commissioner Absent: Jean Ann Phillips
Staff Present: Anthony Black Staff Absent: V. Anne Guthrie
The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll
call was taken; with a quorum, the minutes from the July meeting were approved unanimously.
The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for consideration was:
Applicant: First Lutheran Church
Address: 8th and Rock streets
Request: Construct a 250 square foot connector between the cathedral and
fellowship hall
The agent, David Coucher, introduced the pastor of the church and the architect of the project; he
stated that the church needs handicapped accessible bathroom facilities and that the new
construction would provide that service. Additional drawings and photos were presented. The
discussion focused on the use of exterior finishes, which would be brick and providing a
compatible brick color. Greer reviewed the Secretary oflnterior's guidelines for new additions,
which state that the new construction should appear distinguishable from the historic and that
new materials should be compatible with and not duplicate the original. The window design in
the connector was reviewed as well. The fascia of the connector is too small in its proportion to
the construction; doesn't reflect the connector's proportion and should be increased by about 6".
It's a good job integrating the new construction with the existing in terms of proportion, massing,
setbacks, etc. As there were no questions or objections, it was decided that the request should be
modified to include:
brick color selection to be compatible with and reflect the fellowship hall's materials;
fascia size should be increased by 6";
the connector's arched window is to be of modern material reflecting the historic profile.
There was a motion to approve the COA request for the new construction of a connector
with the above amendments; it was approved unanimously.
Little Rock Historic District Commission
3 August 2000 Minutes, Page 2
The last Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) application for consideration was:
Applicant: Martha Matthews
Address: 1320 Cumberland
Request: New roof and exterior rehab due to fire and tornado damages
The owner presented the request to substitute the original slate roof for an asphalt shingle that is
affordable; the slate roof sustained considerable damage during a fire in April. The new roofing
material is a fiberglass shingle similar to slate in color and sizing; the proposed material was
presented in a written/oral format, but no samples were presented. There was discussion about
the imitative slate material in terms of profile, color, costs, etc. and Greer stated that there are
shadow lines with the asphalt as with slate. Repairs will be made to the remainder of the house,
porch and other areas damaged by the tornado and fire --chimneys will be rebuilt, box gutters
will be replaced, etc. A sample of asphalt shingle will be submitted at a later date. It was stated
that the recommendation that asphalt shingle should simulate slate be deleted. There was a
motion that the request for the asphalt shingled roof be approved, replacing the original
slate, with serpentine pattern (stormy night color). Should there be changes to the roof or
exterior rehabilitation other than what was presented, staff will be notified and
appropriate measures taken. It was approved unanimously.
Under old business, the window changes at 314 East 14th were discussed. The contractor and
owner presented photos, a sample vinyl window, windows costs, rehabilitation costs, etc. There
was discussion about the degree of rot that the wooden windows had and the high costs of having
new wooden ones made. The supplier presented the vinyl window and reviewed its construction
details --single sash, panes, glass, sills, profile, its installation and insulation, etc. Greer stated
that there are no muntins to these windows, which is better than snap-on; however, having a
screen application (the lower half section) in the proposed manner is not appropriate. Screens
help to conceal the details of a non-architecturally appropriate window. The specifics from the
design guidelines (p. 59) of window replacement were discussed.
The contractor detailed the windows' condition, which had deteriorated considerably. He
addressed other windows in the district that do not have appropriate windows. There are
estimates for vinyl windows as the applicant wants double pane windows but no costs for other
window types, i.e., wooden, vinyl clad, etc.
A discussion of rehabilitation costs followed and whether the rehab costs is a factor for an
exception to the design guidelines; another words, are high replacement and repair costs a factor
in the consideration of economic hardship and in meeting the district's design guidelines? It is
incumbent for the applicant to prove economic hardship and to provide documentation that it
would be a hardship to install wooden windows; one estimate for window is not sufficient to
prove an economic hardship. Documentation, including other estimates, should be included that
prove wooden windows to match original would cause the rehab costs to be prohibitive; three
bids are required. Greer provided a name of a supplier who makes affordable custom window
Little Rock Historic District Commission
3 August 2000 Minutes, Page 3
replications; he provided windows for a contract job in Old Washington State Park. What is
required of the applicant is the documentation and three estimates in order to make an exception
to the district's design guidelines. There can be a special call meeting when the documentation
and three estimates have been prepared and submitted.
There was an update on 1000 Rock's noncompliant windows and the installed a/c system; the
work is not consistent with the previously submitted application and the front vinyl window
should be removed. A warrant is to be issued for her to appear before environmental court to
explain her deviation from what was approved and the work that was not approved. There was no
new update on the demolition request for 1423 Cumberland. As there was no business, the
LRHDC meeting was adjourned.