Loading...
HDC_09 07 2000City of Little Rock HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION 7 SEPTEMBER 2000 MINUTES LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon Jean Ann Phillips Commissioners Absent: Wyatt Weems Mark Zoeller Staff Present: V. Anne Guthrie Anthony Black Deborah Wilden The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. Roll call was taken; there was a quorum but no minutes to approve. While there were no applications for Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), there were three items under New and Old Business for consideration. The first item of business was the Kramer Artloft Ltd, 701 Sherman, which has a public sculpture situated on Kramer's northwest corner. The project was funded from an Arkansas Arts Council grant but was constructed without a COA. Charlotte Allison, as a member of Kramer's Artloft Tenant Council and a resident, as is the administrator of the Milleum Project; she attended the meeting to give the LRHDC a presentation on the sculpture and future Kramer exterior art projects. Allison stated that after a review of the district's design guidelines, she interpreted that such a project as Kramer's would fall under landscaping and therefore does not require a public hearing. She stated that the grant project did not require the owner's approval (i.e., Todd Rice and Paul Esterer) but did require Arts Council's approval. The project was discussed with city permits and planning regarding its meeting city code and was even reviewed by city engineer. There was a brief discussion of public art and whose responsibility it is to approve public art from a city perspective. As the sculpture is part of Kramer lawn and the concept of its use. As a structure in a public area and outside, it does fall under landscaping but as it is constructed of concrete, it is a permanent structure and part of the landscape. The legal counsel stated that as Allison was not the owner, there needed to be clarity as to the owner of Kramer. The remainder of the discussion focused on its ownership, and how it must be that person, persons or their authorized agent who must present the project to the LRHDC. As there was no need to go further with the presentation, it was decided that the owners will be asked to come before LRHDC for the future plans of public art at Kramer. Little Rock Historic District Commission 7 September 2000 Minutes, Page 2 The next issue for discussion was 920 Rock. Staff reviewed the details of the previously approved COA and its conditions; also, a summary was presented of phone conversations and correspondence regarding the fence demolition. The owner was given administrative approval to remove the deteriorated perimeter fence on the north, south and west sides of the property, as long as he constructed an approved fence in its place. He submitted a fax drawing of a three-foot trellis fence; staff conferred with the chair and both agreed that it was not appropriate. A drawing of the old fence was submitted: it was 62 "in height and constructed of a wooden, horizontal woven fence. Staff wrote a memo to permits allowing the owner to pull a permit in order to construct new fence per agreed requirements -- that it be similar to that which was removed. The owner presented his perspective of removing the fence -- an ad was placed for the removal the fence; a drawing was submitted of proposed fence; adjacent neighbors were notified of the upcoming fence removal. For safety reasons and looks, the removal of the fence was necessary. Staff explained the property, its construction date and adjacent land use; also there was a summary of recent correspondence to the owner in regards to the fence; he has until mid-October to reconstruct a fence similar in height, opacity and along the side property lines as the old. Access to each apartment is from an open corridor on the north side and the apartment balconies are on the south side; it is similar to a motel in construction and is not the typical siting for apartments in an historic district. The side yard setbacks are quite close as are the majority of structures in an urban environment and in the neighborhood. When the apartments were built ca. 1960s, there was a requirement to fence side property, but there are no requirements now. The owner stated that he would be happy to construct a three foot fence. Owners of the adjacent duplex were in attendance to present their request that the fence be reconstructed as soon as possible; they did not object to the removal of the fence as long as another was constructed. Discussion focused on the process of demolition, the reasons to remove the fence and purposes of fence construction in an urban environment. Greer inserted that he wants the owner of 920 Rock to amend his COA to construct a side yard fence; the notification process allows other owners an opportunity to comment on the proposed construction. Gordon stated that there are ways to screen, provide privacy and creative solutions for an urban necessity. Legal counsel reminded the group of the purpose of the owner's presence before LRHDC: to explain the removal of the old fence. If the owner wants to construct a new fence, he must amend the COA and as part of the process, notify property owners within 150 feet of the subject property. If a fence is built to replace the previous one, the owner has until mid-October to construct it; if the owner wants to construct a new fence type, the established COA requirements must be followed. Whatever is decided, the issue must be resolved. Little Rock Historic District Commission 7 September 2000 Minutes, Page 3 An update was presented on 1000 Rock: an affidavit was signed for the owner to appear before the environmental judge to address the vinyl window issue, etc. However, the owner has yet to be served with the affidavit/warrant, etc. Other business was two minor changes for the apartments at 915-924 Commerce: ◊the perimeter fence is being changed to encompass less side yard space than originally presented; the fence design, etc. has not changed ◊the side windows on the balconies were changed to extend to the floor as opposed to what was originally presented of the side windows extending only halfway It was decided that the changes were minor and could be administratively approved. Also, regarding Pratt's structure on 314 E. 14th: it was discussed that there should be an amendment to the COA in terms of changing the window selection. As there was no business, the LRHDC meeting was adjourned.