HDC_11 02 2000City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
2 NOVEMBER 2000
MINUTES
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Commissioners Present: John Greer, Chair Howard H. Gordon
Jean Ann Phillips Wyatt Weems Mark Zoeller
Staff Present: V. Anne Guthrie Anthony Black Debra Weldon
The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order. As
there was a quorum, minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously.
The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) was:
Applicant: Glenn Kubeczka
Address: 920 Rock
Request: Fence construction
Staff summarized previous actions relating to the property and the request. The previous fence,
which the owner removed, was detailed in terms of its construction. The owner described the
proposed fence, along the perimeter of the property (on the two sides and rear), as a 3' or 4'
picket fence purchased from Home Depot. A representative of adjacent owners on the north
described the neighborhood and the need for fencing to delineate private spaces in an urban and
dense area. On each side of the subject five unit apartments is a duplex on the north and a four -
plex on the south. After a discussion of fence details (styles, etc.), neighborhood density and
rehab efforts, Greer stated the need for a closer spacing of the pickets and increasing the fence
height to four feet. Phillips made a motion to approve the four foot fence; (Gordon added that
the photo of the fence be included in the file); the motion was approved unanimously.
The next COA for consideration was:
Applicant: Angela Murray
Address: 1401 Cumberland
Request: Rear stairway construction (after- the -fact)
A brief summary of the request was that the previously approved COA for a spiral stairway was
denied by the National Parks Service (i.e., the owner applied for a rehabilitation tax credit on the
apartments). This request is an amendment to the approved COA in order to allow the stairway's
construction as presented. In an effort to minimize the contractor's work and to meet other
Little Rock Historic District Commission
2 November 2000 Minutes, Page 2
regulations, the applicant proposes the stairway construction as demonstrated. Drawings and
photos were presented of the enclosed stairway prior to its demolition and the requested stairway.
(NOTE: this amended request is after - the -fact as the stairway was constructed prior to this
meeting request) The applicant stated that the stairway was approved by the respective state and
federal entities for the tax credit application; however, it must be painted. Weems made a motion
to approve the amended request for the stairway; there was a second and the request was
unanimously approved.
The last COA for consideration was:
Applicant: Lighthouse Center Inc
Address: 1414 Park Lane
Request: Rehabilitation of structure
The applicant presented the project request, and its specifics were detailed in terms of bringing
the structure up to code as it is on the city's Unsafe and Vacant Structure listing. It is planned to
remodel the interior, with Wali Carradine as project architect. Exterior details were reviewed and
discussed: reconstruct the front porch and steps; install a new asphalt shingled roof, replace
exterior siding where needed with matching siding; and replace deteriorated wood on the porch
with the same. The front porch rehab will emulate what was original to the house; however,
additional drawings and photos of the proposed work are needed. There was a motion to
approve the request contingent on staff receiving additional drawings and photos for
documentation; the motion was approved unanimously.
Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, pr sented the LRHDC with an update on 1000 Rock and the
dismissal of the criminal affidavit nolle prosequi ( "nol pros "). He summarized the historic
district case of the Second Baptist C ch in which the district's ordinance and design guidelines
were upheld by the state Supreme Co . A summary of the process for 1000 Rock and the
owner's request was presented with a da eline, correspondence and conditions of compliance (six
months in which to correct the vinyl win w). The focus centered on window details, such as
snap on mutins and how they are viewed in he context of the guidelines. The vinyl window on
the east elevation of the subject property is t main concern, and there was discussion on how to
remedy a COA violation -- an injunction in C eery Court or criminal prosecution through
Environmental Court.
The subject property's security bars, hile not the main concern, has become an issue through
the press. While the methodology for a dressing design guideline issues such as security bars,
need to be addressed, Carpenter emphas ed that if the LRHDC reviews the design guidelines for
the historic district, it should be in the bes interest of the district, exterior integrity of the
architecture and its architectural heritage - -- he guidelines should not be reviewed specifically to
address vinyl windows and security bars. If c nges are made to the guidelines, the changes
should be in relation to the district and not to t individual. The review can be done later and
separately. There was a discussion of the design uidelines, their review and relationship to the
Little Rock Historic District Commission
2 November 2000 Minutes, Page 3
such as s mitting an amended COA request to retain the vinyl window. There was
discussion f noncompliance and the form of relief through filing an injunction in Chancellory
Court for n being in compliance. As the applicant of 1000 Rock has not challenged the
approved CO , she has accepted its validity. Then it is a matter of the applicant either in
compliance or ot. An injunction will mandate that she bring the structure into compliance.
While design g 'deline review is a policy issue, the process of compliance (issuance of a
criminal affidavi etc.) and enforcement of compliance also needs to be addressed. There was
discussion about p ss coverage, lack of understanding or fairness in terms of the LRHDC's role
and the relevant iss of the applicant not being in compliance due to the installation of vinyl
windows and not see 'ng approval or responding to correspondence.
Gordon asked if the LRHDC should take action in regards to the criminal charge being dropped;
Carpenter stated that his department has taken care of that or will and the applicant will be
notified of the need to address the noncompliance of the vinyl window. At the next meeting it
will be necessary to address the City Manager's request to review the design guidelines. There
was discussion about when the design guidelines were reviewed. In 1997, the artificial siding
policy was added to the appendices; prior to that, the guidelines were drawn up and adopted in
1993. It was suggested that a systematic five -year review of the design guidelines would be
helpful.
As there was no business, the LRHDC meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Fax:501- 371-4675 Jan 4 2001 12 :42 P.02
Historic District Commission
2 November 2000 Minutes
Corrections: paragraphs 5 and 6
Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, presented the LRHDC with an update on 1000 Rock and the
dismissal of the criminal affidavit by nolle prosequi ( "nol pros "). He summarized the historic
district case of the Second Baptist Church in which the district's ordinance and design guidelines
were upheld by the state Supreme Court. A summary of the process for 1000 Rock and the
owner's request was presented with a dateline, correspondence and conditions for compliance
(six months in which to correct the vinyl window). The focus centered on window details, such
as snap on mutins and how they are viewed in the context of the guidelines. The vinyl window
on the east elevation of the subject property is the main concern, and there was discussion on
how to remedy a COA violation -- an injunction in Chancery Court or criminal prosecution
through Environmental Court.
The subject property's security bars, while not the main concern, has become an issue through
the press. While the methodology for addressing design guideline issues such as security bars,
need to be addressed, Carpenter emphasized that if the LRHDC reviews the design guidelines for
the historic district, it should be in the best interest of the district, exterior integrity of the
architecture and its architectural heritage - -- the guideliens should not be reviewed specifically to
address vinyl windows and security bars. If changes are made to the guidelines, the changes
should be in relation to the district and not to the individual. The review can be done later and
separately. There was a discussion of the design guidelines, their review and relationship to the
1000 Rock applicant. The owner's disregard of the district's guidelines needs to be addressed,
such as submitting an amended COA request to retain the vinyl window_ There was discussion
of noncompliance and the form of relief by seeking an injunction in Chancery Court for not
being in compliance. As the applicant of 1000 Rock has not challenged the approved COA, she
has accepted its validity. Then is is a matter of whether the applicant is in compliance or not.
An injunction will mandate that she bring the structure into compliance. While design guideline
review is a policy issue, the process of compliance (issuance of a criminafaffdavit, etc.) and
enforcement of compliance also needs to be addressed. There was discussion about press
coverage, lack of understanding or ;Fairness in terms of the LRHDC's role and the relevant issue
of the applicant not being in compliance due to the installation of vinyl windows and not seeking
approval or responding to correspondence.
Lh�11�rov�f'. w.�oiw.n,yl�
4`