HDC_08 02 2001City of Little Rock
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
2 AUGUST 2001
MINUTES of the
LITTLE ROCK HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION
Commissioners Present:
Howard H. Gordon Jean Ann Phillips Mark Zoeller
Commissioners Absent: John Greer Wyatt Weems
Staff Present: V. Anne Guthrie Debra Weldon
The meeting of the Little Rock Historic District Commission (LRHDC) was called to order;
there was a quorum but no minutes were distributed for approval. Gordon stated for the record
(and applicants) that with three commissioners, a vote would have to be unanimous for passage.
The first Certificate of Appropriateness (COA), which was deferred, was:
Applicant: City of Little Rock
Address: 600 Ferry
Request: Construction of Visitor's Center parking lot
Staff summarized the application request. Also entered into the record was a memo from City
Attorney Tom Carpenter, who was requested to distinguish the difference between the subject
application and the Second Baptist Church's application for a parking lot. The decision was
appealed and went before the state supreme court in 1987. Weldon summarized Carpenter's
memo: that the parking lot request for the Visitor's Center is easily distinguished from the
parking lot of Second Baptist. While the memo was five pages in length, Weldon read the
memo's four main points into the record: I) The application is not simply for the creation of a
parking lot, instead it is for the creation of a parking lot as part of an overall historic preservation
project; 2) the parking lot is not on the edge of the district; 3) The parking lot can actually serve
two historic structures; and 4) the Commission has approved parking facilities within the district
that are part of other preservation efforts within the district. For additional information, refer to
Carpenter's 2 August 2001 memo. There was additional in-depth discussion about parking lots in
historic districts.
Brian Minyard, of Planning and Development, raised the issue that Director Jim Lawson had
submitted the requested statistics for visitor center parking. Phillips raised the possibility of
waiting to construct the lot until after the Visitor's Center is up and running in order to see its
Little Rock Historic District Commission
2 August 2001 Minutes, Page 2
demand. Public Works stated that the contract for the construction of the parking lots, which
included the two separate lots had been bid and awarded. There was in-depth discussion about
the need for RV parking and anticipated center visitation; there are not many municipal visitor
centers in order to obtain or compare visitation numbers.
John Gill, as Curran fundraiser, presented information, goals and perspective about the new Little
Rock Visitor's Center. The land acquisition of the three lots on Ferry, along with the Curran site,
was discussed particularly as it relates to parking needs. An estimated 55,000 visitors per year, or
600 visitors a day, is the potential visitation to the center; the parking study listed future parking
needs and locations. Existing parking focused on: limited on-street parking along 6th, which
allows it only on one side; Capitol allows parking on both sides; limited use of post office
facilities; and limited spaces behind Curran. Primary access to the Visitor's Center will be from
6th, which is easily accessible to the Ferry Street parking lot. Zoeller asked about landscape and
area maintenance (trash, watering, etc.). There was a motion by Zoeller to approve the
application request with the staff conditions and with the condition that both sites will be
properly maintained; it was approved unanimously.
The second COA under consideration was:
Applicant: Lisa Cornwell
Address: 900 Rock
Request: Installation of new windows & new garage door;
construction of privacy fence in rear yard
The applicant presented the request; Gordon asked the applicant to address the various parts of
the request individually. The request is to: install new windows; replace window casings; replace
steel garage doors; construct privacy fence in rear yard, similar to the neighbor's fence.
Zoeller stated that the LRHDC needed more information about the various project items and
more details about each request item. Such as, a site map to depict the proposed fence, locations
of the gates; a fence elevation, which depicts the overall height, picket spacing; type of windows;
etc. The applicant should provide a written explanation and better graphics for the various
request items; all agreed that more detail was needed. Gordon stated that the LRHDC needed the
following for the various elements of the request: a spec sheet with the profile of trim
replacement and window sizes; same for garage door; more fence detail (site plan, setbacks,
ROW, gate locations, details). Steve Adams, as a neighbor, stated that he was concerned about
the project, especially the window casings and the roof eaves, which are over his property.
Phillips made a motion to defer the request until more details are submitted when the
applicant has the information and notifies staff. It was approved unanimously. The request
is deferred until the next meeting, unless the information is submitted earlier.
Under old business, funding was approved for the review of the district's design guidelines; a
RFQ will be issued. As there was no other business, the LRHDC meeting adjourned at 5:45.